Jesus Izquierdo appeals the denial of his motion to vacate his sentence. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). Izquierdo argued that, under Johnson v. United States, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), the district court violated his due process rights by increasing his sentence under the residual clause of the career offender provision of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a). The dis[*651] trict court ruled that Izquierdo’s argument “fail[ed] as a matter of law” based on United States v. Matchett, 802 F.3d 1185, 1194-95 (11th Cir. 2015), and denied it as untimely. We affirm the denial of Izquier-do’s motion on the ground that it failed on the merits.

The district court correctly ruled that Johnson did not affect Izquierdo’s sentence under the Guidelines. After Izquier-do appealed, the Supreme Court held in Beckles v. United States, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 886, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017), as we had in Matchett, that “the advisory Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to a vagueness challenge under the Due Process Clause and that § 4B1.2(a)’s'residual clause is not void for vagueness.” Beckles, 137 S.Ct. at 895. Beckles confirms that Johnson did not affect the validity of Izquierdo’s sentence.

We AFFIRM the denial of Izquierdo’s motion to vacate.