1 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, ) CA No. 16-30080 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

AMMON BUNDY, RYAN PAYNE, ) 

RYAN BUNDY, BRIAN CAVALIER, ) 

and BLAINE COOPER, ) 

 ) 

 Defendants-Appellants. ) 

____________________ 

CIRCUIT RULE 27-3 CERTIFICATE 

___________________ 

Assistant Federal Public Defender Rich Federico, attorney for defendantappellant Ryan Payne, certifies to the following: 

1. The names, email and office addresses, and telephone numbers of the 

attorneys for the parties are: 

Attorneys for United States (Appellee): 

Kelly Zusman 

Office of the U.S. Attorney 

Mark O. Hatfield U.S. Courthouse 

Suite 600 

1000 S.W. Third Avenue 

Portland, OR 97204-2902 

(503) 727-1000 

Email: Kelly.Zusman@usdoj.gov

 Case: 16-30080, 03/30/2016, ID: 9921366, DktEntry: 4, Page 1 of 11

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 357-2 Filed 03/30/16 Page 1 of 11
2 

Geoffrey Barrow 

Office of the U.S. Attorney 

Mark O. Hatfield U.S. Courthouse 

Suite 600 

1000 S.W. Third Avenue 

Portland, OR 97204-2902 

(503) 727-1000 

Email: Geoffrey.Barrow@usdoj.gov

 Ethan Knight 

Office of the U.S. Attorney 

Mark O. Hatfield U.S. Courthouse 

Suite 600 

1000 S.W. Third Avenue 

Portland, OR 97204-2902 

 (503) 727-1000 

 Email: Ethan.Knight@usdoj.gov

 Craig Gabriel 

Office of the U.S. Attorney 

Mark O. Hatfield U.S. Courthouse 

Suite 600 

1000 S.W. Third Avenue 

Portland, OR 97204-2902 

(503) 727-1000 

Email: Craig.Gabriel@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Ammon Bundy (Appellant) 

C. Michael Arnold 

Arnold Law Office, LLC 

 401 E. 10th Avenue, Suite 400 

 Eugene, OR 97401 

 (541) 338-9111 

 Email: mike@arnoldlawfirm.com

 Case: 16-30080, 03/30/2016, ID: 9921366, DktEntry: 4, Page 2 of 11

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 357-2 Filed 03/30/16 Page 2 of 11
3 

 Lissa Casey 

Arnold Law Office, LLC 

 401 E. 10th Avenue, Suite 400 

 Eugene, OR 97401 

 (541) 338-9111 

 Email: lissa@arnoldlawfirm.com

 Attorneys for Ryan Payne (Appellant) 

 Lisa Hay 

 Federal Public Defender 

 101 SW Main Street, Suite 1700 

 Portland, OR 97204 

 (503) 326-2123 

 Email: lisa_hay@fd.org

 Rich Federico 

 Assistant Federal Public Defender 

 101 SW Main Street, Suite 1700 

 Portland, OR 97204 

 (503) 326-2123 

 Email: rich_federico@fd.org

 Standby Attorney for Ryan Bundy, Pro Se (Appellant) 

 Lisa Ludwig 

 811 SW Naito Parkway, Suite 500 

Portland, OR 97204 

(503) 223-5570 

lisa@ludwiglegaldefense.com 

 Attorney for Brian Cavalier (Appellant) 

 Todd E. Bofferding 

 1215 B Street 

 P.O. Box 539 

 Hood River, OR 97031 

 (541) 490-9012 

 Email: tbofferding@gorge.net

 Case: 16-30080, 03/30/2016, ID: 9921366, DktEntry: 4, Page 3 of 11

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 357-2 Filed 03/30/16 Page 3 of 11
4 

 Attorney for Blaine Cooper (Appellant) 

 Krista Shipsey 

 820 SW 2nd Avenue, Suite 275 

 Portland, OR 97204 

 (503) 265-8119 

 Email: shipseylaw@gmail.com

2. The case calls for emergency consideration because the transport order 

under appeal, entered by the Oregon District Court on March 22, 2016, is set for 

April 13, 2016. On that date, the defendants will be transported in the custody of 

the U.S. Marshal to the Nevada District Court to be arraigned on charges in a 

separate case, unrelated to the Oregon case. In the event the appeal cannot be 

considered and decided by the date of transportation—April 13, 2016—a stay from 

either the district court or this Court will be necessary to prevent irreparable harm to 

the defendants. 

3. Counsel for the government was advised by email of this appeal on 

March 25, 2016. Counsel for the government will be served a copy of this motion 

on the date of filing. The government opposes this motion. 

Dated this 30th day of March, 2016. 

 

 

Rich Federico 

Attorney for Defendant-Appellant 

Ryan Payne 

 Case: 16-30080, 03/30/2016, ID: 9921366, DktEntry: 4, Page 4 of 11

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 357-2 Filed 03/30/16 Page 4 of 11
5 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, ) CA No. 16-30080 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

AMMON BUNDY, RYAN PAYNE, ) 

RYAN BUNDY, BRIAN CAVALIER, ) 

and BLAINE COOPER, ) 

 ) 

 Defendants-Appellants. ) 

___________________ 

EMERGENCY MOTION UNDER CIRCUIT RULE 27-3 

OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR STAY PENDING APPELLATE REVIEW

___________________ 

Defendant-Appellant Ryan Payne, through his attorney, and on behalf of 

Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy (pro se), Brian Cavalier, and Blaine Cooper who 

through their respective attorneys join in this motion, respectfully moves the Court 

for emergency briefing and consideration of the issues presented in the Interlocutory 

Appeal and Petition for Writ of Mandamus being filed concurrently with this motion. 

Expedited consideration is needed because the Oregon district court’s order in 

United States v. Ammon Bundy, et al., Case No. 3:16-cr-00051-BR (D. Or. filed 

March 22, 2016) (CR 334), requires the defendants to be transported to Las Vegas, 

 Case: 16-30080, 03/30/2016, ID: 9921366, DktEntry: 4, Page 5 of 11

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 357-2 Filed 03/30/16 Page 5 of 11
6 

Nevada, on April 13, 2016, pursuant to writs of habeas corpus ad prosequendum 

issued by a United States magistrate judge in Nevada for the purposes of appearing 

in the District of Nevada to face separate criminal proceedings in United States v. 

Cliven Bundy, et. al., Case No. 2:16-CR-00046-GMN-PAL (D. Nev.). The 

defendants are submitting an opening brief and excerpts of record 

contemporaneously with this motion. Should this Court determine that additional 

time is needed to resolve this matter, the defendants respectfully request that the 

Court stay the Oregon district court’s order pending appellate review. The 

defendants are simultaneously seeking a stay directly from the Oregon district court. 

I. Emergency Relief Is Needed In Less Than 21 Days. 

Ninth Circuit Rule 27-3, which provides for emergency review or relief, 

applies to matters in which “irreparable harm relief is needed in less than 21 days.” 

As explained more thoroughly in the Interlocutory Appeal and Petition for Writ of 

Mandamus, the defendants are currently facing criminal charges in a complex case 

in the District of Oregon. After the defendants appeared in the District of Oregon, 

received counsel, and began preparing for trial, a United States magistrate judge in 

the District of Nevada issued writs of habeas corpus ad prosequendum ordering the 

defendants to be transported to Nevada to face charges in Nevada. The defendants 

challenged the validity of those writs and their execution in the Oregon district court. 

 Case: 16-30080, 03/30/2016, ID: 9921366, DktEntry: 4, Page 6 of 11

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 357-2 Filed 03/30/16 Page 6 of 11
7 

See CR 312. The Oregon district court denied the defendants’ challenge and ordered 

the United States Marshals to transport the defendants to Nevada on April 13, 2016. 

CR 334. 

It would be unprecedented to require the defendants, who have already been 

arraigned and have begun to prepare for trial in the Oregon case, which has been 

declared complex, to be involuntarily transported to Nevada to face criminal charges 

in a separate proceeding that is also likely to be declared complex, especially where 

the government intends to proceed in both cases on a parallel track simultaneously. 

The commentary to Ninth Circuit Rule 27-3 indicates that the “emergency relief” 

rule is to be employed where irreparable harm would result without Court action and 

not in situations merely seeking procedural relief. Unless this Court offers expedited 

relief to the defendants, the defendants will be forcibly separated from their counsel 

and the forum in which they are preparing their defense in a complex case. Further, 

their rights under the Speedy Trial Act will be triggered in the Nevada case, and the 

defendants will be forced to defend themselves against two complex proceedings in 

two districts roughly 1,000 miles apart from each other simultaneously. Thus, the 

defendants respectfully request this Court’s expedited consideration and resolution 

review of their Interlocutory Appeal and Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

 Case: 16-30080, 03/30/2016, ID: 9921366, DktEntry: 4, Page 7 of 11

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 357-2 Filed 03/30/16 Page 7 of 11
8 

II. Alternatively, This Court Should Stay the District Court’s Order. 

In the alternative, the defendants respectfully request that this Court stay the 

Oregon district court’s order requiring the defendants to be transported to Nevada 

until this Court can address the merits of the appeal. The defendants are 

simultaneously seeking a stay directly from the Oregon district court but submit this 

matter to the Ninth Circuit in an abundance of caution. 

“The party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the 

circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 

434 (2009). The factors considered for a stay all militate in favor of preserving the 

status quo pending the outcome of this appeal: (1) the stay applicant has a strong 

likelihood of succeeding on the merits of the appeal; (2) the applicant will be 

irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) the issuance of the stay will not substantially 

injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) the public interest favors 

procedural regularity and enforcement of statutory and constitutional norms. See 

Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776-77 (1987). The first two factors are “the most 

critical,” and the third and fourth “factors merge when the Government is the 

opposing party.” Nken, 556 U.S. at 434-35. 

As explained above, and more thoroughly in the Interlocutory Appeal and 

Petition for Writ of Mandamus, which are incorporated by reference, this case 

 Case: 16-30080, 03/30/2016, ID: 9921366, DktEntry: 4, Page 8 of 11

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 357-2 Filed 03/30/16 Page 8 of 11
9 

presents unprecedented execution of writs requiring the defendants, who have 

already been arraigned and begun to prepare for trial in Oregon, to now also begin 

defending themselves against separate charges in Nevada at the same time. A stay 

should be issued because allowing the defendants to be transferred to Nevada would 

infringe upon the defendants’ rights to a speedy trial, the effective assistance of 

counsel, and due process of law, and the defendants have a substantial likelihood of 

succeeding on the merits. Unless a stay is granted, the defendants’ rights to due 

process, a speedy trial, and the effective assistance of counsel will be immediately 

and irreparably injured. 

A temporary stay—in place only until the Court can address the defendants’ 

arguments—will not substantially interfere with the prosecution in Nevada, where 

the government has already waited almost two years from the date of incident to 

begin its case. The public interest favors not only honoring the defendants’ rights 

but also implementing the due process-based order of priority of prosecutions 

necessary to an orderly system of justice. 

Because irreparable harm would result unless the defendants’ receive 

expedited review of their Interlocutory Appeal and Petition for Writ of Mandamus, 

and because all four factors in the Court’s stay analysis weigh in favor of the 

defendants, this Court should either grant the defendants’ expedited review or stay 

 Case: 16-30080, 03/30/2016, ID: 9921366, DktEntry: 4, Page 9 of 11

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 357-2 Filed 03/30/16 Page 9 of 11
10 

the district court’s order to preserve the status quo until the merits of defendants’ 

interlocutory appeal have been resolved.

Dated this 30th day of March, 2016. 

 

Rich Federico 

Attorney for Defendant-Appellant 

Ryan Payne 

 Case: 16-30080, 03/30/2016, ID: 9921366, DktEntry: 4, Page 10 of 11

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 357-2 Filed 03/30/16 Page 10 of 11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on March 30, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing 

Emergency Motion Under Circuit Rule 27-3 for Stay Pending Appellate Review 

with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system. 

I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that 

service will be accomplished by the appellate CM/ECF system. 

/s/ Jennifer Lillie 

Jennifer Lillie 

 Case: 16-30080, 03/30/2016, ID: 9921366, DktEntry: 4, Page 11 of 11

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 357-2 Filed 03/30/16 Page 11 of 11