U.S. v. Edwards, No. 90-5512

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore JOHN R. GIBSON and BOWMAN; JOHN R. GIBSON
Citation946 F.2d 1347
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Joe Darryl EDWARDS, Appellee.
Docket NumberNo. 90-5512
Decision Date10 October 1991

Page 1347

946 F.2d 1347
UNITED STATES of America, Appellant,
v.
Joe Darryl EDWARDS, Appellee.
No. 90-5512.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.
Submitted March 14, 1991.
Decided Oct. 10, 1991.

Richard G. Morgan, Minneapolis, Minn., argued, for appellant.

Andrea George, Minneapolis, Minn., argued (Daniel M. Scott, on the brief), for appellee.

Before JOHN R. GIBSON and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges, and DUMBAULD, * Senior District Judge.

JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge.

The United States appeals from the district court's 1 order acquitting Joe Darryl Edwards after a jury convicted Edwards of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (1988). The district court held that there was no predicate felony to support the section 922(g) conviction, since Edwards' civil rights were restored by state statute when he completed his terms of imprisonment and parole for an earlier unregistered firearm conviction. The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20) (1988) exempted felons whose civil rights had been restored from the reach of the federal firearms laws. United States v. Edwards, 745 F.Supp. 1477 (D.Minn.1990). The government argues that no state statute can exempt a federal felon from the federal firearms laws, and that a federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 925(c) (West Supp.1991), provides the exclusive method for restoring Edwards' firearms privileges. We affirm the judgment of the district court.

In 1986, Edwards pled guilty in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota to possession of an unregistered firearm in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) (1982). He served a prison sentence until November 4, 1988, and was released from parole supervision on January 22, 1989. In 1990, Edwards was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year imprisonment,

Page 1348

and a jury found him guilty of this offense. He then moved for acquittal, arguing that the 1986 federal conviction did not qualify as a predicate offense. He argued that his civil rights were restored when he had served his sentence and been discharged and that 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20) provided that a felon whose civil rights had been restored did not fall within the prohibition of section 922(g). The district court concluded that the Minnesota statute restored the civil rights of all discharged convicts who were citizens of Minnesota, including those who served federal sentences, whether or not the discharge order explicitly recited the fact of restoration. 745 F.Supp. at 1480.

The United States makes two arguments that Minnesota's restoration of civil rights statute should not apply to exempt a federal felon from the firearms laws. First, the government argues that the statute exempting felons whose civil rights have been restored, section 921(a)(20) (1988), does not include federal felons whose rights were restored by state law. Second, the government argues that another provision of the federal firearms laws, section § 925(c), provides the exclusive means by which federal felons may be exempted from the federal firearms laws.

After this case was submitted, the Ninth Circuit decided that a state's restoration of civil rights to a federal felon operated to exempt that felon from section 922(g). United States v. Geyler, 932 F.2d 1330 (9th Cir.1991). After conducting our own inquiry, we are convinced that the Geyler holding is correct.

Resolving the government's objections requires us to analyze the relationship between various federal and Minnesota statutes. 2 Edwards was convicted under section 922(g)(1), which prohibits possession of a firearm by anyone "who has been convicted in any court of, [sic] a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year," and which initially appears to include Edwards. However, section 921(a)(20) limits the class of people who fall within section 922(g)(1) by narrowing the definition of a felon:

What constitutes a conviction of ["a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year"] shall be determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held. Any conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of this chapter, unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.

(emphasis added).

A Minnesota statute purports to restore a felon's civil rights upon completion of his sentence. Minn.Stat. § 609.165 subds. 1 & 2 provide: 3

Subdivision 1. When a person has been deprived of civil rights by reason of conviction of a crime and is thereafter discharged, such discharge shall restore the person to all civil rights and to full citizenship, with full right to vote and hold office, the same as if such conviction had not taken place, and the order of discharge shall so provide.

....

Subd. 2. The discharge may be:

Page 1349

(1) By order of the court following stay of sentence or stay of execution of sentence; or

(2) Upon expiration of sentence.

Thus, fitting the federal and state statutes together, we see that section 921(a)(20) exempts from the firearms laws felons whose civil rights have been restored and Minn.Stat. § 609.165 subd. 1 purports to restore a felon's civil rights upon expiration of his sentence. 4 The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 practice notes
  • Walker v. United States, No. 14–5703.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • September 1, 2015
    ...not to post-conviction events—leaving state law as the governing standard for the restoration of civil rights. United States v. Edwards, 946 F.2d 1347 (8th Cir.1991) ; United States v. Geyler, 932 F.2d 1330, 1333–34 (9th Cir.1991). The Fourth Circuit, in the two decisions reviewed by the Co......
  • State v. Wasson, No. C7-99-199.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • August 3, 2000
    ...must be unlawful user of or addicted to controlled substance for federal law to be applicable); see generally United States v. Edwards, 946 F.2d 1347, 1349 (8th Cir.1991) (holding that Minn.Stat. § 609.165 (1998) can restore a felon's civil rights so as to exempt a federal felon from federa......
  • Larson v. U.S., No. Civ. 97-1210(RHK/RLE).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota
    • December 12, 1997
    ...a Federal conviction that was secured in Minnesota, our Court of Appeals has expressly held to the contrary. In United States v. Edwards, 946 F.2d 1347, 1348 (8th Cir.1991), the District Court had "concluded that the Minnesota statute restored the civil rights of all discharged convict......
  • Walker v. United States, No. 14-5703
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • September 1, 2015
    ...not to post-conviction events—leaving state law as the governing standard for the restoration of civil rights. United States v. Edwards, 946 F.2d 1347 (8th Cir. 1991); United States v. Geyler, 932 F.2d 1330, 1333-34 (9th Cir. 1991). The Fourth Circuit, in the two decisions reviewed by the C......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
19 cases
  • Walker v. United States, No. 14–5703.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • September 1, 2015
    ...not to post-conviction events—leaving state law as the governing standard for the restoration of civil rights. United States v. Edwards, 946 F.2d 1347 (8th Cir.1991) ; United States v. Geyler, 932 F.2d 1330, 1333–34 (9th Cir.1991). The Fourth Circuit, in the two decisions reviewed by the Co......
  • State v. Wasson, No. C7-99-199.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • August 3, 2000
    ...must be unlawful user of or addicted to controlled substance for federal law to be applicable); see generally United States v. Edwards, 946 F.2d 1347, 1349 (8th Cir.1991) (holding that Minn.Stat. § 609.165 (1998) can restore a felon's civil rights so as to exempt a federal felon from federa......
  • Larson v. U.S., No. Civ. 97-1210(RHK/RLE).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota
    • December 12, 1997
    ...a Federal conviction that was secured in Minnesota, our Court of Appeals has expressly held to the contrary. In United States v. Edwards, 946 F.2d 1347, 1348 (8th Cir.1991), the District Court had "concluded that the Minnesota statute restored the civil rights of all discharged convicts who......
  • Walker v. United States, No. 14-5703
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • September 1, 2015
    ...not to post-conviction events—leaving state law as the governing standard for the restoration of civil rights. United States v. Edwards, 946 F.2d 1347 (8th Cir. 1991); United States v. Geyler, 932 F.2d 1330, 1333-34 (9th Cir. 1991). The Fourth Circuit, in the two decisions reviewed by the C......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT