Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William BACON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-05-30
Citations: 691 F. App'x 491
Docket Number: No. 16-35855
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William BACON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 691
Pages: 491–491

Head Matter:
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).

Opinion:
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.