Whether the Second Amendment precludes disarming individuals on supervised release or state parole under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) based on historical tradition

No question identified. : 2. The court of appeals affirmed, relying on its decisions in United States v. Moore, 111 F.4th 266 (3d Cir. Aug. 2, 2024), petition for certiorari denied, S. Ct. 24968 (June 30, 2025), and United States v. Quailes, 126 F.4th 215 (8d Cir. 2025), petition for writ of certiorari filed, S. Ct. 24-7033. 3. As Mr. Eddings did here, the individuals in those cases relied on the Second Amendment and this Court’s precedent to seek dismissal of § 922(g)(1) charges, arguing that the government had not yet identified any historical tradition that would support permanently disarming individuals for the conduct at issue in their underlying predicate crimes. Rather than resolve that question, the Third Circuit decided to address a different question entirely: whether the government may disarm individuals while they are serving a term of supervised release or state probation or parole. In Moore, the Court held that “history and tradition support disarming convicts who are completing their sentences,” including individuals on supervised release at the time of the charged possession. Moore, 111 F.4th at 273. In Quailes, the Court extended the rule it had announced in Moore to those serving a sentence of state probation and those on state parole. Quailes, 126 F.3d at 223. Mr. Eddings was on state parole when he was found in possession of the charged firearm; the court of appeals found his case was controlled by Quailes. App.2a. 4. Although the petition for writ of certiorari was denied in Moore, the petition filed in Quailes remains pending. S. Ct. 24-7033 (distributed for conference of September 29, 2025). 4. Counsel for Mr. Eddings respectfully requests a 60-day extension of time, to and including September 12, 2025, within which to file a petition for writ of certiorari. Additional time is necessary to consult with Mr. Eddings, who is incarcerated at some distance from undersigned counsel, about this week’s order denying the request for certiorari in Moore, about pending related petitions for writ of certiorari, and about how to proceed in the instant matter. In addition, undersigned counsel is currently preparing a Third Step Brief to be filed in the Third Circuit in United States v. Shelton, Nos. 24-1302, 24-1322, 24-1491 (due July 7, 2024) as well as a Reply Brief in the case of United States v. McNeill, No. 2:06-cr-383 (W.D.Pa.) (also due July 7, 2024) and a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion in that case. She is also engaged in investigation and legal research in another 2255 matter while working on multiple other direct appeals, including another cross-appeal, United States v. Gamble, Nos. 23-2105, 23-2199. In light of the foregoing, counsel represents that additional time is needed to consult with Mr. Eddings and to prepare the petition in this case. Respectfully submitted. Elisa A. Long Federal Public Defender /s/ Renee Pietropaolo Renee Pietropaolo Assistant Federal Public Defender Counsel of Record Federal Public Defender’s Office for the Western District of Pennsylvania 1001 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1500 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 644-6565 Counsel for Applicant Deago Lee Eddings July 3, 2025