In 2013, James Villa pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute marijuana and he was sentenced as a career offender to 164 months in prison. In 2015, Villa filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, claiming that his sentence violated his rights under the Due Process Clause because he no longer qualified as a career offender after Johnson v. United States, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). Johnson held that the “residual clause” of the Armed Career Criminal Act was unconstitutionally vague. Villa argued by extension that an identically-worded provision of the Sentencing Guidelines applied in his case, USSG § 4B1.2(a)(2) (2013), was also unconstitutionally vague. The district court ^[1] denied relief, and Villa appeals.

Assuming without deciding that Villa’s claim was not waived in his plea agreement, Villa is not entitled to relief under § 2255 because the advisory Guidelines are not subject to a vagueness challenge under the Due Process Clause. Beckles v. United States, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 886, 895, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017).

The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.