
    Joseph Rudolph WOOD, III, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles L. RYAN, interim Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 08-99003.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    July 18, 2014.
    Julie Hall, Oracle, AZ, Kevin Clarence Lerch, Tucson, AZ, Dale A. Baich, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Jennifer Yolanda Garcia, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Kent Ernest Cattani, Chief Counsel, John Pressley Todd, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey A. Zick, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, Phoenix, AZ, Amy Pignatella Cain, Assistant Attorney General, Tucson, AZ, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: SIDNEY R. THOMAS, RONALD M. GOULD, and JAY S. BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER

Petitioner filed a Consolidated Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion for Stay of Execution before the Honorable Kim W. Wardlaw. Circuit Judge Wardlaw referred the Petition and Motion to this panel pursuant to Cir. R. 22-2(c) (“Once a case is assigned to a death penalty panel, the panel will handle all matters pertaining to the case_”) and Cir. R. 22-4(e) (“In all capital cases where petitioner seeks a stay of execution, the Clerk shall refer any motion for a stay of execution to the death penalty panel.”).

Under Fed. R.App. P. 22(a), “[a]n application for a writ of habeas corpus must be made to the appropriate district court.” See also Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 660-61, 116 S.Ct. 2833, 135 L.Ed.2d 827 (1996) (noting that the Rule would “bar consideration of original habeas petitions in the courts of appeal”). Pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 22(a), if a habeas petition is filed in the Court of Appeals, “the application must be transferred to the appropriate district court.”

Therefore, the Consolidated Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion for a Stay of Execution is transferred to the District of Arizona.

TRANSFERRED.  