USA V. EDWARD RZEWNICKI, No. 16-10131 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUL 28 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-10131 D.C. No. 4:14-cr-01155-RCC-BGM-1 v. EDWARD ALOYSIUS RZEWNICKI, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Raner C. Collins, Chief Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted July 13, 2017 San Francisco, California Before: GRABER and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and FOGEL,** District Judge. 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 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Jeremy D. Fogel, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation. 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 § 13912(A) applies only to offenders who have been convicted of a single felony. Rocking K Holdings, Ltd. v. Pima County, 822 P.2d 487, 489 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). Accordingly, the district court correctly denied the motion to dismiss. AFFIRMED. 2 16-10131
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.
