United States v. William Bacon

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 30 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-35855 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos. 2:16-cv-00161-JLQ 2:10-cr-0025-JLQ v. WILLIAM BACON, MEMORANDUM * Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Justin L. Quackenbush, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 24, 2017** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. 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 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). appeal are foreclosed. See Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886, 895 (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. 2 16-35855