Case Name: Barry Alan LAYTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Steven K. BORDIN, Chief Probation Officer, Butte County, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-14
Citations: 680 F. App'x 639
Docket Number: No. 15-15319
Parties: Barry Alan LAYTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Steven K. BORDIN, Chief Probation Officer, Butte County, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 680
Pages: 639–640

Head Matter:
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).

Opinion:
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.