Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramon BAZAN, III, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-01-03
Citations: 707 F. App'x 826
Docket Number: No. 17-40132 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramon BAZAN, III, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 707
Pages: 826–827

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramon BAZAN, III, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-40132 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed January 3, 2018
Jimmy Eric Pardue, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Bruce Edward Anton, Sorrels, Udashen & Anton, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ramon Bazan, III, appeals the 120-month sentence imposed on resentencing for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court granted Bazan's 28 U.S.C. § 2256 motion and vacated his original 240-month sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act in light of Johnson v. United States, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 2555-67, 2563, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015).
Bazan contends that the district court violated the Ex Post Facto Clause in ap plying the version of the Sentencing Guidelines in effect at resentencing instead of the version in effect when the offense was committed. We do not decide whether the district court erred, because any error was harmless. See United States v. Delgado-Martinez, 564 F.3d 750, 753 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Rodarte-Vasquez, 488 F.3d 316, 322 (5th Cir. 2007). The district court's statements at resentencing indicate "that the district court had a particular sentence in mind and would have imposed it, notwithstanding the error." Delgado-Martinez, 564 F.3d at 753 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
The judgment is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47,5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.