BARRY LAYTON V. STEVEN BORDIN, No. 15-15319 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 14 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BARRY ALAN LAYTON, Petitioner-Appellant, No. 15-15319 D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01153-WBS v. MEMORANDUM* STEVEN K. BORDIN, Chief Probation Officer, Butte County, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 8, 2017** Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. 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, * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 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. 2 15-15319

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.