UNITED STATES v. BAZAN III (2018)

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. § 2255 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, 2555-57, 2563, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015).

Bazan contends that the district court violated the Ex Post Facto Clause in applying 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.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

PER CURIAM: * FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.