No.
`
`
`IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
`
`STATE OF ARIZONA,
`
`a T
`
`LEO STOLLER,
`
`Flaintiff/Appellee,
`
`Ve
`
`Defendant/Appellant,
`
`AZ Supreme Court Case No -
`CV-24- 0092-PR
`
`Court of Appeal
`Division One
`No.
`1 CA=-CV 24-Qigss
`
`Maricopa County
`Superior Court
`Noa. CV2023-0145
`
`he2nd Amendment
`A wellregulatedmililja being-necessary.-le the
`seourtly-ofa[ree stale, the right oftheposple
`lo keep andbear arms, shallnob be infringed.
`
`Notice of Filing an Application For Extension of Timeto File Petitioner’s Petition for Writ
`of Certiorari
`
`ATTENTION: Elena Kagan, Associate Justice
`
`
`
`/s/ Leo Stoller MA ED Pro Se
`1003 Avenida Civrzo
`Rio Rico, Az 85648
`Email Ldms4@hotmail.com
`
`

`

`NOTICEOFFILING
`
`TO:
`
`SERVICE LIST
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICEthat on the 28day of November 28, 2024 , there wasfiled with the
`Clerk of the United States Supreme Court, 1 First Street N.E., Washington, DC, 20543-0001, the
`attached 1) Notice of filing an Application For Extension of Timeto File Petitioner’s Petition
`for Writ of Certiorari
`
`/s/ Leo Stoller MA ED Pro Se
`1003 Avenida Civrzo
`Rio Rico, Az 85648
`Email Ldms4@hotmail.com
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I certify under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing was served upon the
`following parties listed on the servicelist via first class mail on 11/28/24 under
`penalty of perjury.
`
`/s/ Leo Stoller MA ED Pro Se
`1003 Avenida Civrzo
`Rio Rico, Az 85648
`Email Ldms4@hotmail.com
`
`

`

`Method of Service: US Mail
`
`BrockHealthcotte
`40 N Central Ave Suite 1800
`Phoenix, Arizona 85004
`
`Clerk of the Supreme Court of Arizona
`1501 W. Washington
`Phoenix, Az 85007
`
`/s/Leo Stolley|
`P.O. Box 4812
`Rio Rico Arizona 60660
`520.377 0448
`Email: Ldms4@hotmail.com
`
`

`

`No.
`
`
`IN THE SUPREME COURTOF THE UNITED STATES
`
`STATE OF ARIZONA,
`
`Vv.
`
`LEO STOLLER,
`
`Plaintiff/Appellee,
`
`eeeeeeee
`
`AZ Supreme Court Case No CV-24-
`0092-PR
`
`Court of Appeais
`Division One
`No.
`1 CA-CV 24-0188
`
`Maricopa County
`Superior Court
`No. CV2023-014542
`
`Defendant/Appellant,
`
`
`
`ATTENTION: ATTENTION: Elena Kagan, Associate Justice
`
`
`
`Second Amendment
`To the VU. S, Constimcion
`
`regulated militia, being necessary to the
`4 well
`security of a free state, the right of the people to
`keep and bear
`arms,
`shall not be
`infringed.
`
`APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO
`FILE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
`WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`NOW COMESthePetitioner, LEO STOLLER, 78, a disabled person, a
`
`protected person, under the American’s for Disability Act (ADA)
`
`a protected
`
`person, under the American’s for Disability Act (ADA), a Petitioner requests leave
`
`

`

`of Court for a sixty (60) day extension oftimeto file a Petition for Writ of Certiorari
`
`up and until April 5, 2025 andstates as follows:
`
`Petitioner moves this Court under Supreme Court Rule 13 (5) for an extension
`
`of time to file Petitioner’s Petition for Leave to File Writ of Cettiorari .
`
`The Arizona Supreme Court denied the Petitioners Request for Leave to Appeal on Nov 11, 2024
`
`(Appendix 1) the Arizona Appellate Court First District Orders dated 08/26/22 and 08/20/22 (Appendix 2)
`
`dismissed the Petitioner’s Appeal, which were an Appeal ofthe Arizona State Court Order dated January 3,
`
`2024 (Appendix3).
`
`Introduction
`
`STATEMENT OF CASE
`Leo Stoller 78, sui juris, filed an Application to Restore Civil Rights
`and to Restore Firearms Rights in Arizona State Court.
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`The Trial Court Judge Nicholas Sacconsissued a final Order whichis
`the subject of this appeal marked as Appendix3.
`Judge Nicholas Sanccons foundthat “The Leo Stoller has met all of the
`statutory requirements to restore civil rights and to possess or own a
`firearm (See Appendix 3).
`
`

`

`STATE OF ARIZONA,
`‘Plaintité
`“ve-
`LEO STOLLER
`PSPaes
`
`SUPERIOR COURTOF ARIZONA
`IN MARICOPA COUNTY
`Gase Number: CV2023-014542
`gemecsenyaleTO
`RIGHT TO POSSESS OROWN A FIREARM.
`
`
`
`
`
`Baséd on theinformation presented to the Court, THE COURT FINDS: (onlythoseitems marked)
`
`Theprosecutorhasreceived.a copy of the Application to Restore Civil Rights.and/or Rightto Passess or
`‘Own a Firgarr,
`
`(@ The Defendant has metall of the:statutory requirements for theapplication.to restore civil rightsand
`
`—________fo_possess_orown.afirearm.
`Arizona State Court Judge Nicholas Sanccons GRANTEDLeoStoller’s
`application to restore civil rights and committed clear error and
`reversible error at the same time, by “excluding the right to possess or
`own a firearm”. (See Appendix 3)
`ITIS ORDERED:
`(1 GRANTINGthe applicationto restore the right to possess or ownafirearm,
`
`[gj] DENYINGthe dpplication to. restore eii-ighte-end Tight fo:possess or owna firearm forthe
`following reasons:
`L] The applicant has not metall statutory requirements for the application (as noted above),
`[=] Other reasons Presently, the defendantis prohibited from possessing a firearm or ammunition pursuant
`
`
`to. 18. U.S.C § 922(q)(1). When the Superior Court issues an order restoring
`the rightto
`possessfirearms under state law, the defendant will remainprohibited frorn possessing
`firearms or ammunition under Federal jaw, Because the appropriation bar precludes.the!
`
`restorationoffirearms nght.under 18 U,S,C, 2 (c), the only avenue by which the
`
`
`snesemnisssieses-baccsaasellefendant mig pardon.eeeeeseanable to restoré federal firearms right is through a presidential
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`paTED Is97day ofJanuary a2,
`
`\
`
`Judicial Officer
`Judge Nicholas Saccons was constitutionally wrong whenhestated that
`“when the Superior Court issues an order restoring the right to possess
`firearms understate law, the defendant will remain prohibited from
`possessing firearms and ammunition under Federal law. Becausethe
`
`

`

`appropriation bar precludes the restoration of firearms right under 18
`USC Section 925(c) , the only avenue by which the defendant might
`be able to restore federal firearmsright is through a president
`pardon.”
`The above statementis patently false and unconstitutional.
`
`Leo Stoller moves the Supreme Court to grant Leo Stoller an extension of time of
`
`60 days in orderto retain legal counsel.
`
`The US Supreme Court is requested to reverse Judge Nicholas Saccons decision
`
`Appendix 3 and to restore Leo Stoller’s civil right to own a Fire Arms under Arizona
`
`State Law, and under the precedent of Binderupv. Sessions, from the Third Circuit,
`
`of which Pennsylvania is a part. In Binderup, the Third Circuit found that minor,
`
`non-violent felonies were not sufficient to permanently remove a person’s Second
`
`Amendmentrights . The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Court
`
`refused to hear it. Thus, Binderup
`
`is binding precedent which is submitted in
`
`support of the said Motion for an Extension of Time.
`
`Arizona does havethe right to restore Leo Stoller’s civil right to own firearms
`
`and ammunition under Arizona State Law.
`
`Effective September 24, 2022,
`
`first-time felony offenders in Arizona
`
`automatically have their firearm rights restored upon completion of probation or
`
`absolute discharge from prison under A.R.S. § 13-907(A), as long as they have paid
`
`all imposedrestitution.
`
`Leo Stoller has metall the conditions under ARS § 13-907(A) to have his
`
`

`

`firearm rights restored under Arizona State Law.(see Appendix 3)
`
`The issue at handis whetherthe Petitioner/applicant’s right to own or possess firearms can be
`restored after meeting all statutory requirements under Arizona law. The court has correctly
`restored the applicant’s civil rights (Appendix 3) but erroneously concluded that the restoration
`of federal firearm rights is contingent uponapresidential pardon. This Motion for an Extension
`of Time will demonstrate why the denialof firearm rights was improper, unconstitutional, and
`why the Petitioner/applicantis entitled to an Extension oftime of 60 days, in orderto retain
`counsel and to demonstrate to this court that the restoration of Leo Stoller’s rights under the
`relevantlegal framework and why this court will want to hear this 2"! amendment case and grant
`the Petitioner a 60 day extension oftime up and until April 6, 2024 to obtain legal counsel.
`
`
`1. Compliance with State Law Meets Federal Standards
`Under Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 13-910, a person convicted of a felony may apply
`to have their civil rights, including firearm rights, restored after completing all terms oftheir
`sentence. This includes completing probation, parole, or imprisonment, as well as paying any
`applicable fines orrestitution.
`
`The Petitioner/applicant has fulfilled all these requirements, as confirmed by the court’s ruling
`restoring civil rights (Appendix 3) . Arizona law explicitly allows for the restoration offirearm
`rights under A.R.S. § 13-905, which aligns with federal law under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and 18
`U.S.C. § 921(a)(20). The federal statute defers to state law regarding the restoration ofcivil
`rights, provided the restoration does notinclude expressrestrictions on firearms. Since Arizona
`has no such expressrestrictions for individuals who meetthe statutory criteria, the applicant’s
`firearm rights should have been restored under federal law.
`
`
`
`2. Unconstitutional misinterpretation of the Federal Law on Firearms Restoration
`It is clear in the record before this court that the trial court incorrectly concludedthat a
`presidential pardonis the sole mechanism to restore federal firearm rights (Applicant 3). This
`interpretation overlooks the plain languageof 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20), which states:
`“Any conviction which has been expunged, set aside, orfor which a person has been pardoned
`or has hadcivil rights restored shall not be considered a convictionfor the purposesofthis
`chapter, unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration ofcivil rights expressly provides that
`the person maynotship, transport, possess, or receivefirearms.”
`
`Here, the Petitioner/applicant’s civil rights have been restored (Appendix 3), and Arizona law
`does not impose an express prohibition on firearm possession . Therefore, under the federal
`
`

`

`tramework,the Petitioner/applicant’s federal firearm rights are restored without the need for a
`presidential pardon.
`
`
`
`3. Federalism and State Sovereignty in Rights Restoration
`The Supremacy Clause (Article VI of the U.S. Constitution) establishes the primacy of federal
`law, butit also requires deference to state determinations on civil rights restoration in cases
`involving convictions. In Caron v. United States, 524 U.S. 308 (1998), the U.S. Supreme Court
`recognized that state law governs therestoration ofcivil rights, includingfirearm rights. The
`court’s ruling (Appendix 3) denying the restoration offirearm rights improperly encroaches on
`Arizona’s authority to determine the scopeofcivil rights restoration for its residents and was
`clear constitutional error, which this court is called upon to correct.
`
`
`
`4. Practical Implications and Equity
`Denying the Petitioner/ applicant’s firearm rights (Appendix 3) after Leo Stoller have complied
`fully with Arizona law underminesthe purposeofcivil rights restoration, which is to reintegrate
`individuals into society as law-abidingcitizens. This denial creates an arbitrary distinction
`between similarly situated individuals and penalizes LeoStoller, the applicant, despite his
`demonstrated rehabilitation and compliance with legal requirements.
`
`
`Conclusion
`
`Leo Stoller has demonstrated that his appeal has US Supreme Court merit. Thetrial court’s
`decisionto restore civil rights (Appendix 3) but deny firearm rights based on the mistaken belief
`that a presidential pardon is required is unconstitutional and legally unsound and reversable
`constitutional error, which this court is called UPON TO CORRECT.Arizona law permits the
`restoration offirearm rights after meeting statutory requirements ARS § 13-907(A), and
`federal law defers to state determinations in such cases. The applicant respectfully requests the
`court that this court grant Leo Stoller a 60 day Extension to file his Petition for writ of certiorari
`and to retain legal counsel up and until April 5, 2025
`
`

`

`WHEREFORE,Petitioner is thus requesting a 60 day extension of time, to
`
`obtain counsel in order to file a Writ of Certiorari up and until April 5, 2025 to
`
`obtain legal counsel. What ever otherrelief that the court deemsfit and proper.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/Leo Stoller MA ED Pro Se
`1003 Avenida Civrzo
`Rio Rico, Az 85648
`Email Ldms4@hotmail.com
`
`VERIFICATION
`
`Under penalties as provided by law under Section 1-109 of the Illinois Code of Civil
`Procedure, the undersigned certifies that the statements set forth in this instrument are true and
`correct except as to matters therein stated to be on information and belief, and as much matters,
`the undersigned certifies as aforesaid that I verify believe the same to betrue, and the attached
`documents are true and correct copiesofthe originals.
`
`/s/Leo Stoller 11-28-24
`
`10
`
`

`

`No.
`
`
`IN THE SUPREME COURTOF THE UNITED STATES
`
`
`AZ Supreme Court Case No
`
`0092-PR
`
`Court of Appeal
`Division One
`No.
`1 CA=CV 24-0188
`
`) ) ) )
`
`) Maricopa County
`Superior Court
`)
`No.
`‘CV2023-01454
`
`) ) )
`
`CV-24-
`
`“STATE OF ARIZONA,
`
`Plaintiff/Appellee,
`
`Vu
`
`LEQ STOLLER;
`
`befendant/Appellant.
`eee
`
`
`ORDER
`
`This Matter coming to be heard on Petitioner’s Application to File an Extension oftimeto file a
`Writ of Certiorari. The Court being fully advised in the premises.
`
`IT IS HERE BY ORDERED:
`
`Petitioners Application for Leave to file a 60 day extension up and until April 5, 2023 is
`GRANTED/DENIED.
`
`ENTERED:
`
`11
`
`

`

`APPENDIX 1
`
`

`

`MEO
`A)
`#Saas~LOg%
`Age
`“Ry!
`i ae
`
`
`
`»
`
`ha40;
`
`ik°C
`us
`,
`4*
`5
`— a
`ere"Heesserau
`‘suOA~~
`Supreme Court
`
`STATE OF ARIZONA
`
`ANN A. SCOTT TIMMER
`Chief Justice
`
`November 6, 2024
`
`ARIZONA STATE COURTS BUILDING
`1501 WEST WASHINGTONSTREET, SUITE 402
`PHOENIX, ARTZONA 85007
`TELEPHONE;(602) 452-3396
`
`TRACIE K. LINDEMAN
`Clerk of the Court
`
`RE:
`
`STATE v STOLLER
`Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-24-0092-PR
`Court of Appeals, Division One No.
`1 CA-CV 24-0188
`Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2023-014542
`
`GREETINGS:
`
`The following action was taken by the Supreme Court of the State
`of Arizona on November 6, 2024,
`in regard to the above-
`referenced cause:
`
`ORDERED: Motion for a Stay of Rule 31.21 Petition for Review =
`DENIED .
`
`FURTHER ORDERED: Petition for Review = DENIED.
`
`A panel composed of Vice Chief Justice Lopez, Justice Brutinel,
`Justice Bolick and Justice Beene participated in the
`determination of this matter.
`
`Tracie K. Lindeman, Clerk
`
`TO:
`
`Leo Stoller
`Brock J. Heathcotte
`
`Amy M. Wood
`eg
`
`

`

`IN THE
`
`
`
`DIVISION ONE
`
`COURT OF APPEALS|iu: 37"
`CLERK
`STATE OF ARIZONA
`BY: AGEV
`DIVISION ONE
`
`Court of Appeals
`Division One
`) No.
`1 CA-CV 24-0188
`)
`) Maricopa County
`)
`Superior Court
`) No. CV2023-014542
`)
`
`) )
`
`STATE OF ARIZONA,
`
`Plaintiff/Appellee,
`
`Vv.
`
`LEO STOLLER,
`
`) )
`
`Defendant/Appellant.
`
`ORDER RE: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
`
`The court considered Leo Stoller’s April 25, 2024 motion for
`
`reconsideration of the court’s April 4, 2024 order dismissing this
`
`appeal.
`
`Under Rule 22(c}, Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure,
`
`a motion for reconsideration must be filed within 15 days of a
`
`decision. Stoller’s motion for reconsideration is untimely because
`
`Stoller filed it 21-days after the court’s dismissal order.
`
`IT
`
`THEREFORE
`
`Is
`
`ORDERED
`
`denying
`
`the motion
`
`for
`
`reconsideration.
`
`/s/
`David B. Gass, Chief Judge
`
`A copy of the foregoing
`was sent to:
`
`Brock J Heathcotte
`Leo Stoller
`
`

`

`IN THE
`
`COURT OF APPEALS|
`STATE OF ARIZONA
`DIVISION ONE
`
`BY: MAT
`
`#229: os/oa2o24
`AMY M. WOOD,
`CLERK
`
`DIVISION ONE
`
`Court of Appeals
`Division One
`) No.
`1 CA-CV 24-0188
`)
`) Maricopa County
`)
`Superior Court
`) No. CV2023-014542
`)
`
`) )
`
`STATE OF ARIZONA,
`
`Plaintiff/Appellee,
`
`Vv.
`
`LEO STOLLER,
`
`) )
`
`Defendant/Appellant.
`
`
`ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
`
`The court has reviewed the record pursuant
`
`to its duty to
`
`determine whether
`
`it has
`
`jurisdiction over
`
`this appeal.
`
`See
`
`Sorensen v. Farmers Ins. Co., 191 Ariz. 464, 465 (App. 1997).]
`
`Appellant filed a notice of appeal on February 16, 2024,
`
`from
`
`an order entered on January 3, 2024.
`
`A notice of appeal must be
`
`filed no later than 30 days after entry of the judgment or order
`
`being appealed unless a party filed a timely motion that extended
`
`the time to appeal.
`
`ARCAP 9(a),
`
`(e). Because no time-extending
`
`motion was filed,
`
`the notice of appeal is untimely. Therefore,
`
`IT IS ORDERED dismissing this appeal.
`
`/s/
`Melina Brill, Judge Pro Tempore
`
`

`

`A copy of the foregoing
`was sent to:
`
`Brock J Heathcotte
`Leo Stoller
`
`Hon Nicholas Saccone
`
`

`

`APPENDIX 3
`
`

`

`Clerk of the Superior Court
`*** Electronically Filed ***
`L. Sanchez, Deputy
`1/3/2024 4:47:03 PM
`Filing ID 17128252
`
`
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
`IN MARICOPA COUNTY
`
`Case Number: C¥2023-014542
`
`ORDER REGARDING APPLICATION TO
`RESTORE CIVIL RIGHTS AND/OR
`RIGHT TO POSSESS OR OWN A FIREARM
`
`STATE OF ARIZONA,
`Plaintiff
`-“VS-
`
`LEO STOLLER
`DerendanttristmeEau
`Date of Birth: 06/05/1946
`
`Basedon the information presented to the Court, THE COURT FINDS: (only those items marked)
`
`The prosecutor has received a copy of the Application to Restore Civil Rights and/or Right to Possess or
`Owna Firearm.
`
`[| The Defendant has metall of the statutory requirements for the application to restore civil rights and
`to possessor owna firearm.
`L] The Defendant has not metall of the statutory requirements for the application to possess or own a
`firearm including:
`L] The Defendant was convicted of a dangerousoffense as defined in A.R.S. § 13-704.
`
`L] The Defendant was convicted of a serious offense as defined in A.R.S. § 13-706 and less than
`ten years have passedfrom the date of discharge from probation or prison.
`
`[] The Defendant was convicted of any other felony offense and less than two years have passed
`from the date of discharge from probation orprison.
`
`IT IS ORDERED:
`
`L] GRANTINGthe application to restore civil rights and right to possess or ownafirearm.
`
`[=] GRANTINGthe application to restore civil rights excluding the right to possess or own a
`firearm.
`
`© Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County
`ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
`
`Page 1 of 2
`
`CRRR81f 082719
`
`

`

`IT 1S ORDERED:
`L] GRANTINGthe application to restore the right to possess or owna firearm.
`
`[=] DENYINGthe application to restore eivil-rights-and right to possess or owna firearm for the
`following reasons:
`L] The applicant has not metall statutory requirements for the application (as noted above).
`[=] Other reasons Presentl
`_ the defendant is
`prohibited from possessing
`a firearm or ammunition pursuant
`
`to 18 U.S.C § 922(g)(1). When the Superior Court issues an orderrestoring the right to
`
`possessfirearms under state law, the defendantwill remain prohibited from possessing
`firearms or ammunition under Federal law. Because the appropriation bar precludes the
`restoration of firearms right under 18 U.S.C. § 925 (c), the only avenue by which the
`
`efendant might
`be able to restore federal
`firearms right
`is
`through a presidential par on.
`
`DATEDthis 3"
`
`day of January
`
`.
`2024
`Nicholas Saccone
`
`Judicial Officer
`
`© Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County
`ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
`
`Page 2 of 2
`
`CRRR81f 082719
`
`