UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark Hirsch HORODNER, Defendant-Appellant

I

Mark Hirsch Horodner was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1). The remaining facts have been set out in our opinion dealing with his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition, see United States v. Horodner, 993 F.2d 191, 192 (9th Cir.1993), so we do not recite them here. In that opinion, we held that Horodner might have been denied effective assistance of counsel when his lawyer failed to file a timely notice of appeal. See id. at 195 . We remanded with instructions that the district court determine whether Horodner had consented to the abandonment of his direct appeal. See id. at 195-96 . The district court found that Horodner had in fact not consented to the abandonment and ordered that his right of direct appeal be reinstated. Horod-ner then filed a timely notice of appeal. We deal here with his claims.

II

Horodner points to a portion of United States v. Dahms, 938 F.2d 131, 134 (9th Cir.1991), where we stated: “Whether § 922(g)(1) applies to a felon who possesses one type of firearm when state law restricts his right to have another type is an issue of first impression. We hold that it does not.” He argues that because California law did not…