Case ID: f-appx_694/html/0588-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward Aloysius RZEWNICKI, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-10131
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted July 13, 2017 San Francisco, California
    Filed July 28, 2017
    Shelley Kay-Glenn Clemens, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU-Offíce of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Christopher Robert Kilburn, Kilburn Law Office, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: GRABER and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and FOGEL, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Jeremy D. Fogel, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Edward Rzewnicki appeals his conviction for being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). He asserts that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment. The motion was based on his claim that he reasonably believed that the order discharging him from probation on the predicate felony conviction had restored his right to possess firearms, and that the indictment therefore violated the “anti-mousetrapping” rule of 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20).

Rzewnicki argued that he was a first offender as defined by Arizona law and thus was statutorily entitled to automatic restoration of his civil rights upon discharge from probation. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-912(A). Rzewnicki’s 2005 conviction involved three separate felony counts. Under controlling Arizona authority, the automatic restoration provision of Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-912(A) applies only to offenders who have been convicted of a single felony. Rocking K Holdings, Ltd. v. Pima County, 170 Ariz. 134, 822 P.2d 487, 489 (Ct. App. 1991). Accordingly, the district court correctly denied the motion to dismiss.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.