Barry Alan Layton v. STEVEN K. BORDIN, Chief Probation Officer, Butte County

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BARRY ALAN LAYTON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
STEVEN K. BORDIN, Chief Probation
Officer, Butte County,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15-15319
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01153-WBS
MEMORANDUM*
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,
FILED
MAR 14 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 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.
15-15319 2

-- 2 of 2 --