
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael WALKER, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-1429
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    Filed April 6, 2017
    Gregory Allen Holloway, James C, Murphy, Office of the United States Attorney, District of Colorado, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Meredith B. Esser, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Districts of Colorado and Wyoming, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellant
    
      Before MATHESON, BACHARACH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This matter comes on for consideration of the defendant’s response to this court’s order of March 24, 2017, in which the defendant was ordered to show cause why the district court judgment should not be summarily affirmed in light of the Supreme Court decision in Beckles v. United States, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 886, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017) (holding that the United States Sentencing Guidelines, including § 4B1.2(a), are not subject to vagueness challenges under the Due Process Clause). In response, the defendant states that “Undersigned counsel has failed to identify any legal argument refuting that Bedeles controls this case.” Response at p.l.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 
      
       This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. 32.1.
     