Case ID: f-appx_680/html/0639-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Barry Alan LAYTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Steven K. BORDIN, Chief Probation Officer, Butte County, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 15-15319
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2017 
    
    Filed March 14, 2017
    
      Charles Marchand Bonneau, II, Esquire, Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant
    David Andrew Eldridge, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee
    Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Barry Alan Layton appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review a district court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition de novo, see Casey v. Moore, 386 F.3d 896, 904 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

Layton contends that his .state conviction for carrying a concealed weapon under California Penal Code § 12025(a)(2) (2011) violates the Second Amendment. The state court’s rejection of this claim was not contrary to, or based upon an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court law. See U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Peruta v. Cnty. of San Diego, 824 F.3d 919, 939 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (“[T]he Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms does not include, in any degree, the right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.”).

We treat Layton’s additional argument as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So treated, the motion 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.