United States v. Pearson Ware

Eleventh Circuit

United States v. Pearson Ware

758 F.2d 557, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 29086

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedApril 18, 1985

Docket84-5519

StatusPublished

This text of 758 F.2d 557 (United States v. Pearson Ware) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Pearson Ware, 758 F.2d 557, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 29086 (11th Cir. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Ware appeals from his conviction, arising from a conditional plea agreement, for one count of receipt of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(h)(1). The sole issue raised is whether the district court erred in granting the government’s motion in limine to preclude Ware from presenting evidence that his Florida civil rights were restored after his state felony conviction.

The district court properly ruled that this evidence would be excluded. In Dickerson v. New Banner Institute, Inc., 460 U.S. 103, 103 S.Ct. 986, 74 L.Ed.2d 845 (1983), the Supreme Court clearly held that postconviction state actions, such as ex-punctions, which grant certain relief from the effects of a state conviction, do not remove the federal firearms disabilities imposed by section 922(h)(1), because the application of section 922 is not dependent on state law. Id. at 118-21, 103 S.Ct. at 994-96. Therefore, the fact that Florida restored appellant’s civil rights would be immaterial and irrelevant to a prosecution under section 922(h)(1). Furthermore, whether the appellant had actual, subjective knowledge that he was breaking the law by receiving the firearms is irrelevant, since knowledge is not an element of the crime defined by section 922(h). United States v. Giles, 640 F.2d 621, 627 (5th Cir. Unit A 1981). Therefore, appellant’s belief that Florida’s restoration of his state civil rights permitted him to lawfully receive firearms would be irrelevant and, thus, inadmissible at trial.

Since appellant's assertions are without merit, his conviction is AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Ware appeals from his conviction, arising from a conditional plea agreement, for one count of receipt of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(h)(1). The sole issue raised is whether the district court erred in granting the government’s motion in limine to preclude Ware from presenting evidence that his Florida civil rights were restored after his state felony conviction.

The district court properly ruled that this evidence would be excluded. In Dickerson v. New Banner Institute, Inc., 460 U.S. 103, 103 S.Ct. 986, 74 L.Ed.2d 845 (1983), the Supreme Court clearly held that postconviction state actions, such as ex-punctions, which grant certain relief from the effects of a state conviction, do not remove the federal firearms disabilities imposed by section 922(h)(1), because the application of section 922 is not dependent on state law. Id. at 118-21, 103 S.Ct. at 994-96. Therefore, the fact that Florida restored appellant’s civil rights would be immaterial and irrelevant to a prosecution under section 922(h)(1). Furthermore, whether the appellant had actual, subjective knowledge that he was breaking the law by receiving the firearms is irrelevant, since knowledge is not an element of the crime defined by section 922(h). United States v. Giles, 640 F.2d 621, 627 (5th Cir. Unit A 1981). Therefore, appellant’s belief that Florida’s restoration of his state civil rights permitted him to lawfully receive firearms would be irrelevant and, thus, inadmissible at trial.

Since appellant's assertions are without merit, his conviction is AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

758 F.2d 557, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 29086, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-pearson-ware-ca11-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack