Maurice Daniels v. USA

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Maurice Daniels. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-16338

Date Filed: 10/27/2017

Page: 1 of 2

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-16338
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 1:16-cv-22666-CMA,
1:10-cr-20277-CMA-1
MAURICE DANIELS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(October 27, 2017)
Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Maurice Daniels appeals the denial of his motion to vacate. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255. We issued a certificate of appealability to address whether Daniels is

Case: 16-16338

Date Filed: 10/27/2017

Page: 2 of 2

entitled to relief from his firearm convictions on the ground that Johnson v. United
States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), invalidated the “risk of force” clause in 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(3)(B). We affirm the denial of Daniels’s motion.
Daniels’s argument is foreclosed by our recent decision in Ovalles v. United
States, 861 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2017). In Ovalles, we held “that Johnson’s voidfor-vagueness ruling does not apply to or invalidate the ‘risk-of-force’ clause in
§ 924(c)(3)(B).” Id. at 1265. Because section 924(c)(3)(B) is not unconstitutionally
vague, Daniels is not entitled to relief from his convictions.
We AFFIRM the denial of Daniels’s motion to vacate.

2