Articles

10-15-2017 – Governor Brown Signs Bill Allowing Guns Inside of Gun-Free School Zones

10-12-2017 – Is There a Right to Keep and Bear Arms? 9th Circuit to Decide in 2018

9-12-2017 – NRA Open Carry Lawsuit Opposes Open Carry

9-3-2017 – Supreme Court Long Conference on September 25, 2017

8-14-2017 – A Declaration That Open Carry Is the Right

7-28-2017 – Transcript Released in NRA’s Fake Open Carry Lawsuit

7-24-2017 – 50th Anniversary of California’s Loaded Open Carry Ban

7-12-2017 – Can we Save Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms?

6-27-2017 – Supreme Court Decides to Wait for Another Second Amendment Case

6/15/2017 – The Evil Practice of Carrying Weapons Secretly

6/6/2017 – NRA Lawyer says Odds are Supreme Court will NOT take Concealed Carry Case

6/2/2017 – The NRA Lost Another Second Amendment Appeal Today

5/29/2017 – Lead Plaintiff in Supreme Court Concealed Carry Appeal says Courts are Corrupt

5/23/2017 – Peruta Concealed Carry Lawsuit has Waited 2,768 Days – Supreme Court says Wait Longer

5/20/2017 – Second Amendment Case Peruta vs. California May Strike-Out at Supreme Court

5/03/2017 – Did the NRA Take a Dive in its Fake Open Carry Lawsuit?

5/01/2017 – Supreme Court Again Silent on Second Amendment

04/22/2017 – Supreme Court Math and Concealed Carry in Peruta v. California

04/14/2017 – Federal Judge Upholds Nonexistent Gun Ban

04/12/2017 – Concealed Carry, Incest, Gay Marriage and the Supreme Court

04/05/2017 – Justice Neil Gorsuch and the Second Amendment

3/29/2017 – The Next Second Amendment Handgun Carry Case to Go Down in Flames

3/28/2017 – Federal Judge Tells NRA to Put Up or Shut Up in Open Carry Lawsuit

3/22/2017 – Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor Finally Recognizes the Second Amendment

3/13/2017 – Another Second Amendment Appeal Shot-Down by the 9th Circuit

3/10/2017 – US Supreme Court to Decide Concealed Carry Petition in Two Weeks

3/5/2017 – The Florida Supreme Court Just Handed The US Supreme Court a Second Amendment Case It Can’t Refuse

2/23/2017 – California Asks Supreme Court to Wait For Nichols v. Brown Open Carry Appeal

2/15/2017 – NRA Got Spanked for Valentine’s Day!

2/3/2017 – President Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch

1/24/2017 -A Concealed Carry Case SCOTUS Can’t Refuse

1/23/2017 -President Trump’s Judicial Opportunity and Conundrum

1/13/2017 -NRA Tells Supreme Court Open Carry is Perverse

1/11/2017 – NRA Drops Supreme Court Concealed Carry Appeal

12/30/2016 – NRA Asks US Supreme Court To Hear Two Concealed Carry Lawsuits

12/10/2016 – National Concealed Carry Snake Oil Law Will Fail

11/29/2016 – What Lies Ahead for the Second Amendment?

11/10/2016 – The Second Amendment and President Trump

10/03/2016 – A Federal 9th Circuit Judge Finally Finds a Right to Bear Arms in Public

9/28/2016 – Are You Protected by the Fourth Amendment if You Carry a Firearm?

9/20/2016 – Two Concealed Carry Cases Fire Blanks in U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

9/8/2016 – Another Second Amendment Appeal Crashing and Burning in 9th Circuit

8/24/2016 – Concealed Carry Snake Oil and Kool-Aid Peddlers Leave Town for DC

8/18/2016 – The NRA Files Legal Challenge To California Open Carry Bans – But Not Really

8/17/2016 – The Battle for the Second Amendment Moves to Hawaii

8/15/2016 – There is No Right to Concealed Carry – 9th Circuit Denies Full Court Petitions

8/5/2016 – Did California Lie to 11 Federal Judges in Second Amendment Lawsuits?

7/15/2016 – God Save The US From The Second Amendment Lawyers

7/8/2016 – NRA Segregation Now, Tomorrow, and Forever Position Must Fail

7/4/2016 – Try Recalling California’s Anti-Gun Politicians Before Starting Your Revolution

6/27/2016 – NRA Head Wayne LaPierre Really, Really Hates the Second Amendment

6/24/2016 – Judges Who Uphold Bans on Concealed Carry Are Not the Same as Judges Who Look the Other Way When Police Murder People in the Street

6/15/2016 – Where is the NRA’s California Open Carry Lawsuit?

6/13/2016 – What’s Next for the Right to Carry Firearms in Public?

6/8/2016 – Florida Supreme Court Justices Voice Contempt for the Second Amendment

6/5/2016 – Florida Supreme Court to Hear Second Amendment Carry Case with National Ramifications

5/17/2016 – The Second Amendment and the Concealed Carry Problem

5/11/2016 – Federal Court of Appeals Goes Berserk During Second Amendment Gun Case Hearing

5/10/2016 – California Supreme Court Shoots Itself In Foot Over Gun Case

4/25/2016 – Second Amendment Foundation Files Another Concealed Carry Lawsuit: May Backfire

4/13/2016 – Has the NRA Come to Bury the Second Amendment or to Defend It? –

4/6/2016 – Second Amendment Must Wait A Bit Longer In 9th Circuit

3/26/2016 – Concealed Carry of Concealable Firearm in a Vehicle Now a Crime of Moral Turpitude

3/21/2016 – Supreme Court decision wasn’t about stun guns – It was about the Second Amendment decision in District of Columbia v. Heller which is bad news for concealed carry

3/7/2016 – How to Stop Anti-Gun Bills in California from Becoming Law

3/3/2016 – The California Supreme Court Case Which Could Upend the Gun-Groups Concealed Carry Lawsuits

2/24/2016 – The Second Amendment – Checkmate in Four Moves?

2/10/2016 – Why California’s Waiting Period to Purchase a Firearm Will Be Upheld

2/3/2016 – Florida House of Representatives Passes Handgun Open Carry Bill

1/27/2016 – The NRA Thinks Not Getting Caught In A Lie Is The Same Thing As Telling The Truth

12/11/2015 – Why Were the San Bernardino Shooting Victims Unarmed?

11/20/2015 – Attorney Alan Gura May Have Fumbled Another Second Amendment Case

11/20/2015 – HELP WANTED: Competent Second Amendment Lawyer – Inquire Within

11/9/2015 – The Supreme Court may have Finally Found its Next Second Amendment Case

9/2/2015 – Full Derp Battle over Concealed Carry in District of Columbia

9/1/2015 – National Rifle Association Drops Lawsuit against San Francisco

8/31/2015 – The Future of the Second Amendment in California and Hawaii

8/25/2015 – Yes, America, the Second Amendment is a Universal Right!

8/14/2015 – Will this be the Supreme Court’s Next Second Amendment Case?

7/3/2015 – The Future of Open Carry in California Looks Bright

6/16/2015 – State of California Concedes Second Amendment Extends Outside the Home

6/8/2015 – The Second Amendment is Now in the Hands of these Eleven Judges

6/8/2015 – Supreme Court Won’t Hear Second Amendment Cases Until there is a Circuit Split

5/29/2015 – NRA Opposes Open Carry – NRA Now Takes Credit for New Texas Handgun Open Carry Law

5/26/2015 – Four Years Ago Today: Is Open Carry The Right Guaranteed By The Second Amendment

5/18/2015 – Why the Second Amendment Keeps Losing in Court

5/2/2015 – Black Panther Party Invades California Capitol – 48 Years Ago Today

5/1/2015 – The NRA Rearranges Deck Chairs on the Titanic

4/22/2015 – Chief Judge of 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Grants Motion of Lone Voice Defending the Second Amendment Open Carry Right

4/11/2015 – An Open Letter to the Orange County Register’s Editorial on Concealed Carry

4/03/2015 – Another Shoe Drops on the California Concealed Carry Lawsuits

2/27/2015 – Federal Judge Says No Second Amendment Right To Own Firearms

12/6/2014 – The First Shoe Drops On California Concealed Carry Lawsuits

11/30/2014 – Open Carry Gunfight At The California Corral: Start Of Year Four

11/30/2014 – California Open Carry Gunfight Begins Its Fourth Year

11/12/2014 – California Concealed Carry Permits – The Fat Lady Still Hasn’t Sung in Peruta v. San Diego

10/17/2014 – It may be Legal to Carry a Handgun in the Nation’s Capitol by Christmas

10/3/2014 – Another California Concealed Carry Lawsuit Loses before a Federal Judge

8/18/2014 – District of Columbia asks Court for More Time to Enact New Handgun Carry Ban

8/13/2014 – California Concealed Carry Case Peruta v. San Diego – Poised to Move or Stuck in the Mud?

7/30/2014 – Federal Judge Reluctantly Stays his Ruling in DC Handgun Ban

7/28/2014 – The DC Handgun Carry Decision – Throwing Victory into the Jaws of Defeat

7/26/2014 – Ban on Carrying Firearms in Public is Unconstitutional says DC Judge

7/21/2014 – The non-repeal of D.C., Gun-Control

7/2/2014 – US Supreme Court Still Silent On Second Amendment

6/28/2014 – Federal Judge Says Minorities Barred From Bringing Civil Rights Lawsuits

6/7/2014 – The NRA Supports Open Carry Except When The NRA Opposes Open Carry

6/2/2014 – NRA Lawyer Says California Concealed Carry Decision Likely To Be Overturned

6/1/2014 – NRA leadership Comes Out Of The Closet In Its Opposition To Open Carry

Please
donate $10, $25, $50 or $100 to the legal fund to restore your
right to openly carry a loaded firearm in California.

Click
here to donate to the legal fund

(Credit
or Debit cards – Visa, Mastercard, Amex, Discover or eCheck)


GoFundMe PayPal

Please donate $10, $25, $50 or $100 to the fight to restore your right to openly carry a loaded firearm in California.

Click here to donate.

Piryx

(Credit or Debit cards – Visa, Mastercard, Amex, Discover or eCheck)

BitCoins 1AdtAJfcdBkA777fwtVhmCwSwCKGTFrgGz Press@CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

USA v. Daniel Chovan Appeal No. 11-50107 - LOST

Share

CERT DENIED ON OCTOBER 6, 2014

US v. Chovan was a domestic violence appeal in which the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals adopted a framework for evaluating Second Amendment cases in this circuit.  The Chovan Court adopted the “two-step” historical analysis framework which has been adopted in most of the Federal circuits including the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals which overturned Illinois’ ban on carrying loaded firearms in public.  A ban identical to one I am challenging here in California.

Chovan’s request for an en banc rehearing was denied and so he filed a cert petition with the US Supreme Court which has been distributed for the September 29th, 2014 SCOTUS conference.  The government declined to file a brief in opposition and SCOTUS did not request one.  This means that for all intents and purposes the September conference is just a formality.  Cert will undoubtedly be denied.

The Peruta v. San Diego concealed carry case created an intra-circuit split as well as a split with every other Federal and State court.  As the prior precedent, Chovan was binding on the Peruta Court but two of the three judges in the majority decided to disregard the Chovan precedent.  Unless SCOTUS grants Chovan’s cert petition the 9th Circuit must grant the en banc petition in Peruta in order to resolve the intra-circuit split.

Given that the district court held in my Open Carry case that Peruta is binding in my case unlike every other district court judge to date (July 25, 2014) in this circuit, mine will be the first case in which the Court of Appeals will have to resolve the intra-circuit split between Peruta and Chovan if the en banc petition in Peruta is not granted.

Long story short, we likely have many months (if not a couple of years) before we learn whether or not the Second Amendment guarantees our right to step even one foot outside the door of our homes with a firearm.  As California law currently stands, it is illegal for most of us to do just that.

Update October 6, 2014 – Chovan’s cert petition was DENIED which means this district can’t dodge #2A questions like the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Circuits have done.

Update October 3, 2014 – Chovan’s cert petition was considered in the September 29, 2014 “Big Conference.”  We will not know what was decided until next Monday.  It is highly likely that cert was denied because a Brief in Opposition/Response was never requested by SCOTUS nor filed.

Update July 25, 2014 – Chovan’s cert petition was scheduled for the SCOTUS conference of September 29, 2014.

Update July 18, 2014 – Chovan is a very important case.  I check the SCOTUS docket every weekday.  Unfortunately, it can take several days for a filing to show up on the docket.  On July 15th the Federal government filed a “waiver of right of respondent United States to respond.”  If SCOTUS does not request a response then Chovan’s cert petition will most certainly be denied.

Update July 2, 2014 – Chovan filed a cert petition with the US Supreme Court on June 26, 2014.  Response is due August 1, 2014.

07/03/2014  62  Received notice from the Supreme Court: petition for certiorari filed on 06/26/2014. Supreme Court Number 14-5032. [9155906] (RR)

Update April 22, 2014 – Great News Again!!! The mandate in US v. Chovan has now been issued.  The appellate decision is now final.  US v. Chovan is the binding prior precedent in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals barring an unlikely reversal by the US Supreme Court.

05/01/2014  61  MANDATE ISSUED.(HP, MDH and CTB) [9079688] (EL)

Update April 22, 2014 – Great News!!! The en banc petition in US v. Chovan was denied today.  The Chovan decision adopted the “Two-Step Historical Inquiry” framework from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals which I have advocated in my Open Carry lawsuit and which the 7th Circuit used to overturn an identically worded Loaded Open Carry ban in Illinois.  Attorney General Harris advocated the Second Circuit “No Set of Circumstances”/Rational Review framework, which the district court applied in the denial of my preliminary injunction last year and which the magistrate judge once again recommended in her report and recommendation to the district court judge.

Legally, the district court judge is required to follow Chovan in deciding my case as it was the prior precedent to the Peruta decision.  Given that the Peruta decision did not follow the Framework adopted in Chovan, the chances of an en banc rehearing of Peruta is all but guaranteed at this point.

Barring an intervention by the US Supreme Court (i.e., granting of a cert petition).  The Chovan decision remains binding in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and all subsequent Second Amendment cases must defer to the Chovan decision (including the Peruta/Richards/Baker decisions).

For me to lose on appeal, the 9th CCA would have to find that, as the Framers of the Second Amendment understood the right, there is no right to openly carry a loaded firearm on one’s own property or in those “public places” where hunters are exempt from the three Open Carry bans my lawsuit challenges.

Chovan has 90 days from today to file a cert petition with the US Supreme Court.

04/22/2014  60  Filed order (HARRY PREGERSON, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and CARLOS T. BEA): The panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no active judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35. The petition for rehearing is DENIED and the petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED. No further petitions will be entertained. [9068736] (AF)

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

This case is more important than Peruta, Richards and all of the concealed carry cases combined.  Chovan was the first 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision which articulated a framework for evaluating Second Amendment challenges.  Chovan adopted the “Two-Step Historical Inquiry” framework from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, a framework used by most of the Federal Circuits including the D.C. Circuit.

The Chovan decision requires that the lower district courts in the 9th Circuit evaluate a gun control law based on whether or not it burdens the Second Amendment right as it was understood by the Framers of the Second Amendment in 1791.  As importantly, that burden does not have to be a “substantial burden.”  The decision also requires that the government prove its case beyond the legislature (or Congress) simply enacting a law.  Even if the law affects persons who fall outside of the scope of the Second Amendment.

Here is a link to the decision.

Last Activity:

03/18/2014  59  Filed order (HARRY PREGERSON, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and CARLOS T. BEA): Appellant’s motion to exceed the type-volume limitation for a petition for rehearing en banc is GRANTED. [9021416] (AF)

The links below require a Federal PACER account.

General Docket
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals Docket #: 11-50107 Docketed: 03/24/2011
Termed: 11/18/2013
USA v. Daniel Chovan
Appeal From: U.S. District Court for Southern California, San Diego
Fee Status: IFP
Case Type Information:
     1) criminal
     2) Final Judgment
     3) null
Originating Court Information:
     District: 0974-3 : 3:10-cr-01805-JAH-1
     Court Reporter: Cameron Pursley Kircher, Court Reporter
     Court Reporter: Melissa Pierson
     Court Reporter: Melinda Squire Setterman, Official Court Reporter
     Trial Judge: John A. Houston, District Judge
     Date Filed: 05/12/2010
     Date Order/Judgment:      Date Order/Judgment EOD:      Date NOA Filed:      Date Rec’d COA:
     03/23/2011      03/23/2011      03/22/2011      03/22/2011
Prior Cases:
     None
Current Cases:
     None

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff – Appellee,
Caroline Han
Direct: 619-557-5220
[COR LD NTC Assist Fed Pub Def]
OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY
Room 6293
880 Front Street
San Diego, CA 92101-8893Kyle W. Hoffman, Assistant U.S. Attorney
Direct: 619-546-6987
[COR LD NTC Assist US Attorney]
OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY
6293
880 Front Street
San Diego, CA 92101-8893Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S. Attorney
Direct: 619-546-6741
[COR NTC Assist US Attorney]
OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY
880 Front Street
San Diego, CA 92101-8893
   v.
DANIEL EDWARD CHOVAN
Defendant – Appellant,
Devin Burstein, Attorney
Direct: 619-234-4433
[COR LD NTC CJA Appointment]
Devin Burstein, Esq.
suite # 240
Warren & Burstein
501 W. Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,Plaintiff – Appellee,v.DANIEL EDWARD CHOVAN,Defendant – Appellant.

03/24/2011   1 
11 pg, 206.06 KB
DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. Reporters Transcript required: Yes. Sentence imposed: 5 Years Probation. Transcript ordered by 04/12/2011. Transcript due 05/12/2011. Appellant briefs and excerpts due by 06/21/2011 for Daniel Edward Chovan. Appellee brief due 07/21/2011 for United States of America. Appellant’s optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. [7692858] (HC)
04/29/2011   2 
2 pg, 36.36 KB
Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of Devin Burstein for Appellant Daniel Edward Chovan. Date of service: 04/29/2011. [7735716] (DB)
04/29/2011   3 Attorney Joshua J. Jones in 11-50107 substituted by Attorney Devin Burstein in 11-50107 [7735720] (EL)
06/10/2011   4 
4 pg, 24.04 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Daniel Edward Chovan Unopposed Motion to extend time to file Opening brief until 07/21/2011. Date of service: 06/10/2011. [7781517] (DB)
06/13/2011   5 
1 pg, 22.93 KB
Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: AMT): Appellant’s unopposed motion for a 30-day extension of time to file the opening brief is granted. The opening brief is due July 21, 2011. The answering brief is due August 22, 2011. The optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief. [7782559] (WL)
07/21/2011   6 
132 pg, 299.65 KB
Submitted (ECF) Opening brief for review. Submitted by Appellant Daniel Edward Chovan. Date of service: 07/21/2011. [7828535] (DB)
07/22/2011   7 
1 pg, 80.28 KB
Filed clerk order: The opening brief [6] submitted by Daniel Edward Chovan is filed. Within 7 days of the filing of this order, filer is ordered to file 7 copies of the brief in paper format, with a blue cover, accompanied by certification, attached to the end of each copy of the brief, that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically. [7829408] (WP)
07/25/2011   8 Filed Appellant Daniel Edward Chovan excerpts of record in 1 volume. Served on 07/21/2011. [7832464] (WP)
07/25/2011   9 Filed Appellant’s presentence report UNDER SEAL. [7832465] (WP)
07/28/2011   10 COURT DELETED ENTRY. Correct entry below: [11]. Original text: Filed (ECF) Appellee USA Unopposed Motion to extend time to file Answering brief until 09/21/2011 at 11:59 pm. Date of service: 07/28/2011. [7835795] (CH)
07/28/2011   11 
5 pg, 327.16 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellee USA Unopposed Motion to extend time to file Answering brief until 09/21/2011 at 11:59 pm. Date of service: 07/28/2011. [7835818] (CH)
07/28/2011   12 Received 7 paper copies of Opening brief [6] filed by Daniel Edward Chovan. [7836457] (SD)
07/29/2011   13 
1 pg, 23.03 KB
Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: CAG): The Government’s motion for an extension of time in which to file the answering brief is granted. The answering brief is due September 21, 2011. The optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief. [7837154] (WL)
09/21/2011   14 
46 pg, 411.11 KB
Submitted (ECF) Answering brief for review. Submitted by Appellee USA. Date of service: 09/21/2011. [7902371] (CH)
09/22/2011   15 
1 pg, 80.25 KB
Filed clerk order: The answering brief [14] submitted by USA is filed. Within 7 days of the filing of this order, filer is ordered to file 7 copies of the brief in paper format, with a red cover, accompanied by certification, attached to the end of each copy of the brief, that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically. [7903705] (RH)
09/26/2011   17 
4 pg, 125.59 KB
Received Appellee USA notice of filing Vol. 2 of supplemental excerpts of record under seal, with DC protective order attached. [7911872] (LA)
09/26/2011   18 Filed Appellee USA supplemental excerpts of record on appeal in 2 volumes (Vol. 2 UNDER SEAL). [7911875] (LA)
09/28/2011   16 Received 7 paper copies of Answering brief [14] filed by USA. [7909290] (SD)
10/06/2011   19 
40 pg, 108.3 KB
Submitted (ECF) Reply brief for review. Submitted by Appellant Daniel Edward Chovan. Date of service: 10/06/2011. [7919521] (DB)
10/11/2011   20 
1 pg, 80.55 KB
Filed clerk order: The reply brief [19] submitted by Daniel Edward Chovan is filed. Within 7 days of the filing of this order, filer is ordered to file 7 copies of the brief in paper format, with a gray cover, accompanied by certification, attached to the end of each copy of the brief, that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically. [7922882] (WP)
10/17/2011   21 Received 7 paper copies of Reply brief [19] filed by Daniel Edward Chovan. [7931672] (SD)
12/20/2011   22 
10 pg, 703.56 KB
Notice of Oral Argument on FEBRUARY Calendar. Please return ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF HEARING NOTICE form to: PASADENA Office. Please open attached documents to view details about your case. [8007058] (LN)
12/21/2011   23 
2 pg, 51.5 KB
Filed (ECF) Acknowledgment of hearing notice. Location: Pasadena. Filed by Attorney Devin Burstein for Appellant Daniel Edward Chovan. [8008491] (DB)
12/27/2011   24 
2 pg, 356.21 KB
Filed (ECF) Acknowledgment of hearing notice. Location: Pasadena. Filed by Attorney Ms. Caroline Han for Appellee USA. [8012546] (CH)
02/07/2012   25 
3 pg, 354.98 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellee USA citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 02/07/2012. [8058735] (CH)
02/07/2012   26 
3 pg, 32.22 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Daniel Edward Chovan citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 02/07/2012. [8059760] (DB)
02/07/2012   27 
2 pg, 30.66 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Daniel Edward Chovan citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 02/07/2012. [8060416] (DB)
02/15/2012   28 ARGUED AND SUBMITTED TO HARRY PREGERSON, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and CARLOS T. BEA. [8069852] (LN)
02/17/2012   29 
4 pg, 331.56 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellee USA Motion for miscellaneous relief [UNITED STATES MOTION TO ENLARGE 350-WORD LIMIT FOR SUBMISSION OF A FED. R. APP. P 28(j) LETTER. ]. Date of service: 02/17/2012. [8074281] (CH)
02/17/2012   30 
3 pg, 350.39 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellee USA citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 02/17/2012. [8074284] (CH)
02/17/2012   31 
3 pg, 52.81 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Daniel Edward Chovan citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 02/17/2012. [8074367] (DB)
04/12/2012   32 
1 pg, 29.22 KB
Filed order (HARRY PREGERSON, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and CARLOS T. BEA): The parties are ordered to file concurrent letter briefs on the applicability of United States v. Brailey, 408 F.3d 609 (9th Cir. 2005), to this case. The letter briefs shall not exceed three thousand (3,000) words in length. The parties shall file their letter briefs within fourteen (14) days from the date of this order. Parties who are registered for ECF must file the letter brief electronically without submission of paper copies. Parties who are not registered ECF filers must file the original letter brief plus fifteen (15) paper copies. [8138178] (AF)
04/26/2012   33 
9 pg, 361.39 KB
Submitted (ECF) Letter brief for review. Submitted by Appellee USA. Date of service: 04/26/2012. [8155411] (CH)
04/26/2012   34 
11 pg, 62.45 KB
Submitted (ECF) Letter brief for review. Submitted by Appellant Daniel Edward Chovan. Date of service: 04/26/2012. [8155529] (DB)
04/27/2012   35 
1 pg, 99.79 KB
Filed clerk order: The letter brief [33] submitted by USA is filed. No paper copies are required as stated in the court’s April 12, 2012 order. [8155762] (WP)
04/27/2012   36 
1 pg, 99.82 KB
Filed clerk order: The letter brief [34] submitted by Daniel Edward Chovan is filed. No cpaper copies are required as stated in the court’s 4/12/12 order. [8155799] (WP)
12/17/2012   37 
1 pg, 27.12 KB
Filed order (HARRY PREGERSON, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and CARLOS T. BEA) A sua sponte en banc call having been made by the panel, the parties are instructed to file simultaneous briefs setting forth their respective positions on whether the case should be reheard en banc within 21 days of the filing date of this order. See G.O. 5.4c(3). An original and fifty copies should be filed. See Ninth Cir. R. 35-4(b). [8441383] (WL)
12/21/2012   38 
5 pg, 330.18 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellee USA Joint Motion to extend time to file Supplemental brief to 30 days from the date the Court rules on the motion. Date of service: 12/21/2012. [8450109]–[COURT UPDATE: Edited docket text to reflect correct brief type. Resent NDA. 12/21/2012 by RY]–[Edited: Updated docket text to reflect content of filing. 01/17/2013 by RY] (CH)
12/24/2012   39 
1 pg, 34.01 KB
Filed order (HARRY PREGERSON, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and CARLOS T. BEA) The parties’ joint motion for a 30-day extension of time to file simultaneous briefs setting forth their respective positions on whether the case should be reheard en banc is GRANTED. The briefs should not exceed 20 pages in length. The parties’ briefs should address the following issue: whether our circuit’s holding in United States v. Hancock, 231 F.3d 557 (9th Cir. 2000), that the “civil rights restored” provision in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(b)(ii) does not violate equal protection should be overruled in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010). [8451397] (BJB)
01/04/2013   40 
2 pg, 560.01 KB
Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of Kyle W. Hoffman for Appellee USA. Date of service: 01/04/2013. [8462161] (KWH)
01/04/2013   41 Added attorney Kyle W. Hoffman for USA, in case 11-50107. [8462331] (HH)
01/23/2013   42 
28 pg, 289.67 KB
Submitted (ECF) Supplemental Brief for review. Submitted by Appellee USA. Date of service: 01/23/2013. [8485330] (KWH)
01/23/2013   43 
30 pg, 59.87 KB
Submitted (ECF) Supplemental Brief for review. Submitted by Appellant Daniel Edward Chovan. Date of service: 01/23/2013. [8485333] (DB)
01/24/2013   44 
1 pg, 81.5 KB
Filed clerk order: The supplemental brief [42] submitted on 1/23/13 by USA is filed. [8487136] (SW)
01/24/2013   45 
1 pg, 83.37 KB
Filed clerk order: The supplemental brief [43] submitted on 1/23/13 by Daniel Edward Chovan is filed. [8487651] (SW)
01/25/2013   46 Received 50 paper copies of Supplemental brief [42] filed by USA. [8488837] RECORDS UNIT (SW)
01/28/2013   47 Received 50 paper copies of Supplemental brief [43] filed by Daniel Edward Chovan. [8490965] RECORDS UNIT (SW)
11/14/2013   48 
4 pg, 43.66 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Daniel Edward Chovan Motion to substitute counsel. Date of service: 11/14/2013. [8861952] (DB)
11/18/2013   49 
56 pg, 613.11 KB
FILED OPINION (HARRY PREGERSON, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and CARLOS T. BEA) AFFIRMED. Judge: HP Authoring, Judge: CTB Concurring. FILED AND ENTERED JUDGMENT. [8865324] (RP)
11/19/2013   50 
2 pg, 343.88 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellee USA Correspondence: Request to amend counsel representation on the opinion.. Date of service: 11/19/2013 [8868629] (KWH)
11/19/2013   51 
1 pg, 32.16 KB
Filed order (HARRY PREGERSON, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and CARLOS T. BEA): Defendant-Appellant’s motion to substitute counsel, filed November 14, 2013, is GRANTED. The docket shall reflect that Devin Burstein replaces Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., as counsel of record for Defendant-Appellant Daniel Edward Chovan. [8868871] (AF)
11/19/2013   52 
5 pg, 20.92 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Daniel Edward Chovan Unopposed Motion to extend time to file petition for rehearing until 01/15/2014. Date of service: 11/19/2013. [8869164] (DB)
11/20/2013   53 Criminal Justice Act electronic voucher created. (Counsel: Devin Burstein for Daniel Edward Chovan) [8870273] (DR)
11/21/2013   54 
1 pg, 31.83 KB
Filed order (HARRY PREGERSON, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and CARLOS T. BEA): Defendant-Appellant’s unopposed motion for an extension of time to file a Petition for Rehearing is GRANTED. Defendant-Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing shall be filed no later than January 15, 2014. [8872664] (AF)
01/07/2014   55 
5 pg, 93.64 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Daniel Edward Chovan Unopposed Motion to extend time to file petition for rehearing until 02/18/2014. Date of service: 01/07/2014. [8927861] (DB)
01/10/2014   56 
1 pg, 31.82 KB
Filed order (HARRY PREGERSON, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and CARLOS T. BEA): Appellant’s unopposed motion for an extension of time to file a Petition for Rehearing is GRANTED. The Petition for Rehearing shall be filed on or before February 18, 2014. SO ORDERED. [8933370] (AF)
02/18/2014   57 
52 pg, 236.34 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Daniel Edward Chovan petition for rehearing en banc (from 11/18/2013 opinion). Date of service: 02/18/2013. [8981423]–[COURT UPDATE: Removed motion (refiled using correct ECF event, see [58]). Resent NDA. 02/18/2014 by RY] (DB)
02/18/2014   58 
5 pg, 19.13 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellant Daniel Edward Chovan Motion to file oversized petition for rehearing and/or petition for rehearing en banc. Date of service: 02/18/2014. [8982561]–[COURT ENTERED FILING] (RY)
03/18/2014   59 
1 pg, 31.56 KB
Filed order (HARRY PREGERSON, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and CARLOS T. BEA): Appellant’s motion to exceed the type-volume limitation for a petition for rehearing en banc is GRANTED. [9021416] (AF)
Share