
    Christopher R. CUMMINGS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 16-1636
    United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
    Argued February 16, 2017
    Decided March 21, 2017
    Shelley M. Fite, Attorney, Joseph Toth, Attorney, Federal Defender Services of Wisconsin, Inc., Madison, WI, for Petitioner-Appellant
    Jonathan H. Koenig, Attorney, Benjamin Taibleson, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Milwaukee, WI, for Respondent-Appellee -
    Before JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge DANIEL-A. MANION, Circuit Judge MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge
   ORDER

In 2006, Cummings pled guilty to distributing cocaine. The district court sentenced him as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. To be sentenced as a career offender, § 4Bl.l(a) requires the defendant to have “at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense.” Cummings previously had been convicted in Wisconsin for possessing cocaine with intent to distribute and for discharging a firearm from a vehicle. He argued that discharging a firearm from a vehicle was not a crime of violence and thus he could not be sentenced as a career offender. The district court held, however, that discharging a firearm was a crime of violence under the sentencing guideline’s residual clause.

In 2015, the Supreme Court held that the residual clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act was unconstitutionally vague. Johnson v. United States, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). After Johnson, Cummings filed a petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He argues that because the language in the sentencing guideline’s residual clause is identical to the language in the ACCA’s residual clause, the sentencing- guideline’s residual clause is also unconstitutionally vague.

We had held that the sentencing guideline’s residual clause was unconstitutionally vague after Johnson in United States v. Hurlburt, 835 F.3d 715 (7th Cir. 2016). But this week, the Supreme Court held that the sentencing guidelines are not subject to due-process vagueness challenges. Beckles v. United States, 580 U.S. —, —, 137 S.Ct. 886, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017). Cummings’s argument is thus without merit.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal argu-mente, and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
     