Case ID: f-appx_691/html/0491-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William BACON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-35855
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2017 
    
    Filed May 30, 2017
    Timothy John Ohms, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USSP — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Alison K. Guernsey, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDWAID — Federal Defenders of Eastern Washington & Idaho, Yakima, WA, Defendant-Appellant
    Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

William Bacon appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

As Bacon concedes, all of his arguments on the three certified issues in this appeal are foreclosed. See Beckeles v. United States, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 886, 895, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017) (holding that “the advisory Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to a vagueness challenge under the Due Process Clause and that [U.S.S.G.] § 4B1.2(a)’s residual clause is not void for vagueness”).

Bacon’s motion to expand the certificate of appealability is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.