Case: 12-16258

06/26/2012

ID: 8228355

DktEntry: 4-1

Page: 1 of 5

(1 of 7)

RICHARD L HOLCOMB (HI Bar No. 9177) Holcomb Law, A Limited Liability Law Corporation 1136 Union Mall, Suite 808 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 545-4040 Facsimile: (808) 356-1954 Email: rholcomblaw@live.com ALAN BECK (HI Bar No. 9145) Attorney at Law 4780 Governor Drive San Diego, California 92122 Telephone: (619) 971-0414 Email: ngord2000@yahoo.com KEVIN OGRADY (HI Bar No. 8817) The Law Office of Kevin OGrady, LLC 1136 Union Mall, Suite #808 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 521-3367 Facsimile: (808) 521-3369 Email: kevin@criminalandmilitarydefensehawaii.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Christopher Baker

UNITED STATE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH CIRCUIT

) ) ) Plaintiff, No. 12-16258 vs. ) ) CASE NO. CV 11-00528 LOUIS KEALOHA, as an individual and ) ) NOTIFICATION PURSUANT TO in his official capacity; CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU; ) CIRCUIT RULE 34-3 ) ) Defendants. ________________________________ ) __________________________________ CHRISTOPHER BAKER,

Case: 12-16258

06/26/2012

ID: 8228355

DktEntry: 4-1

Page: 2 of 5

(2 of 7)

NOTIFICATION PURSUANT TO CIRCUIT RULE 34-3 INTRODUCTION COMES NOW THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, Christopher Baker, by and through the undersigned counsel and pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 34-3, and notifies this Court that pursuant to Circuit Rule 34-3(3), Mr. Baker believes that this appeal is entitled to priority. Despite this notification and his willingness to comply with an expedited briefing and argument schedule, Mr. Baker will likely move this Court to stay oral arguments and ruling on this case until Richards, et. al. v. Prieto, et. al., No. 1116255 is decided. The reason for the anticipated request is that the aforementioned case deals with many of the same legal issues as Plaintiff-Appellant Bakers appeal. Indeed, it is believed that the primary issue in that case is dispositive of the primary issue raised in Mr. Bakers appeal, i.e., whether the right to bear arms extends beyond the threshold of the bearers front door. And, several of the remaining issues raised by Mr. Bakers appeal may depend on the disposition of that primary issue. As Richards, supra., has already been fully briefed by both parties and because of the fundamental importance and long-reaching implications of the disposition of that issue, Mr. Baker would prefer the Court to rule on this pre-existing appeal prior to ruling on the merits of his appeal.

Case: 12-16258

06/26/2012

ID: 8228355

DktEntry: 4-1

Page: 3 of 5

(3 of 7)

Nevertheless, the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii denied a preliminary injunction enjoining certain provisions of Hawaii statutory regime pertaining to firearms and other weapons. Plaintiff-Appellant is appealing this denial. Thus, from Mr. Bakers reading of Circuit Rule 34-3, Mr. Baker is required to notify this Court that he believes that this appeal is entitled to priority. However, Mr. Baker would not object to this Court entering a scheduling Order setting this matter to be briefed and argued in the normal course of non-priority appeals. Nevertheless, in compliance with the applicable rules, Plaintiff-Appellant proposes the following briefing and hearing schedule for this appeal: Opening Brief due June 26, 2012 Response Brief due July 11, 2012 Reply Brief due July 25, 2010 Oral Argument, no earlier than the week of September 3, 2012

Case: 12-16258

06/26/2012

ID: 8228355

DktEntry: 4-1

Page: 4 of 5

(4 of 7)

This expedited schedule, although unnecessary from Mr. Bakers perspective, is achievable. The district court has held hearings on the

aforementioned preliminary injunction, which Plaintiff-Appellant Baker has ordered the transcripts of, and will receive them in short order. All other portions of the record necessary to brief and argue Mr. Bakers appeal are believed to be in order. Further, counsel for Defendant-Appellees has indicated that they are unfamiliar with the rules for expediting an appeal. Accordingly, they decline to agree with expediting an appeal. Thus, the Defendants-Appellees may join Mr. Bakers anticipated Motion for Stay. CONCLUSION While Mr. Baker believes he is entitled to priority in disposition of his appeal, he would not object to this matter being disposed of in the normal course of non-priority appeals. Indeed, as of the drafting of this notice, Mr. Baker

anticipates the filing of a Motion to Stay pending the outcome of Richards, supra. Nevertheless, Mr. Baker will make every reasonable effort to comply with any and all deadlines this Court sees fit to impose.

Case: 12-16258

06/26/2012

ID: 8228355

DktEntry: 4-1

Page: 5 of 5

(5 of 7)

Respectfully submitted this 26th day of June, 2012 s/ Richard L. Holcomb________________ Richard Holcomb (HI Bar No. 9177) s/ Alan Beck_________________________ Alan Beck (HI Bar No. 9145) s/ Kevin OGrady____________________ Kevin OGrady (HI Bar No. 8817)

Case: 12-16258

06/26/2012

ID: 8228355

DktEntry: 4-2

Page: 1 of 2

(6 of 7)

RICHARD L HOLCOMB (HI Bar No. 9177) Holcomb Law, A Limited Liability Law Corporation 1136 Union Mall, Suite 808 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 545-4040 Facsimile: (808) 356-1954 Email: rholcomblaw@live.com ALAN BECK (HI Bar No. 9145) Attorney at Law 4780 Governor Drive San Diego, California 92122 Telephone: (619) 971-0414 Email: ngord2000@yahoo.com KEVIN OGRADY (HI Bar No. 8817) The Law Office of Kevin OGrady, LLC 1136 Union Mall, Suite #808 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 521-3367 Facsimile: (808) 521-3369 Email: kevin@criminalandmilitarydefensehawaii.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Christopher Baker

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NINTH CIRCUIT

) CASE NO. 12-16258 ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) ) LOUIS KEALOHA, as an individual and ) in his official capacity as Honolulu Chief ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Police; ) STATE OF HAWAII; ) CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU; ) HONOLULU POLICE DEPARTMENT; ) NEIL ABERCROMBIE, in his official ) ) capacity as Hawaii Governor, ) Defendants. ) ________________________________ )

CHRISTOPHER BAKER,

Case: 12-16258

06/26/2012

ID: 8228355

DktEntry: 4-2

Page: 2 of 2

(7 of 7)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the date first written below, I duly served a true and exact copy of the foregoing document upon the following persons by operation of the electronic filing system or first class United States mail, postage prepaid, on: Curtis Sherwood City and County of Honolulu 530 S. King Street, Room 110 Honolulu, HI 96813 Kendall Moser Dept. of the Attorney General 425 Queen Street Honolulu, HI 96813

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii; June 26, 2012.

s/Richard L. Holcomb Richard L. Holcomb Attorney for Plaintiff