*1 Before MATHESON , BACHARACH , and PHILLIPS , Circuit Judges.
_________________________________ 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 , 137 S. Ct. 886 (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 Beckles controls this case.” Response at p.1.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED .
The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court Per Curiam
2