James Bernard Jones, Jr. v. United States , 646 F. App'x 914 ( 2016 )

Case: 14-11008 Date Filed: 04/05/2016 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 14-11008
Non-Argument Calendar
______________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 4:13-cv-00142-WTM-GRS,
4:09-cr-00416-WTM-GRS-1
JAMES BERNARD JONES, JR.,
Petitioner – Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent – Appellee.
_____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Georgia
_____________________
(April 5, 2016)
ON REMAND FROM THE
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
Before MARCUS, JORDAN, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 14-11008 Date Filed: 04/05/2016 Page: 2 of 2
This case is here following a remand from the Supreme Court for
consideration in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015).
Following review of the record and the parties’ supplemental briefs, we affirm the
denial of Mr. Jones’ motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Briefly stated, Mr. Jones cannot show prejudice from his counsel’s failure to
object to the BOLEO offense being counted as a qualifying conviction under the
career offender provisions of the Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. §§ 4B1.1(a)
& 4B1.2. As we indicated in our prior opinion, the BOLEO offense constituted a
“crime of violence” under the residual clause of the career offender provisions.
Because we have recently held that the vagueness principle announced in Johnson
does not apply to the career offender provisions of the Sentencing Guidelines, see
United States v. Matchett, 802 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2015), any constitutional
objection by Mr. Jones’ counsel to the use of the residual clause of the career
offender guideline would have failed.*
AFFIRMED.
_________________
*We deny Mr. Jones’ motion to expand the certificate of appealability to include a
freestanding guideline error claim.
2