United States v. Rodney Edward Thompson
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 25316
| 11th Cir. | 2012Background
- Thompson, convicted in Alabama state court of first degree assault in 1994, lost firearm, office, jury service, and voting rights as a consequence.
- In 2005 Thompson sought restoration of civil rights; Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles issued a January 10, 2006 letter with a certificate titled “Certificate of Restoration of Voter Registration Rights.”
- The certificate stated restoration of voting rights but explicitly did not restore other civil rights; a separate January 13, 2006 letter clarified the certificate only allowed voter registration and not other rights.
- In September 2009 Thompson was arrested with a firearm; July 2010 federal grand jury charged him with felon in possession under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); May 2011 he pled guilty unconditionally.
- Before sentencing, the district court addressed whether restoration of voting rights negated his status as a felon under § 921(a)(20); the court held restoration of only voting rights was insufficient and denied a motion to dismiss the indictment.
- Thompson appeals the denial of the motion to dismiss and the substantive reasonableness of a 12-month sentence; the Eleventh Circuit affirms the district court on both counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether restoration of only voting rights satisfies §921(a)(20). | Thompson: voting-rights restoration triggers §921(a)(20) (felon not convicted). | U.S.: need restoration of multiple civil rights; voting alone insufficient. | No; restoration of only one of three key civil rights is insufficient; §921(a)(20) requires civil rights restored. |
| Whether Thompson’s sentence is substantively reasonable. | Thompson argues for a more lenient sentence based on dispute over restoration impact. | Government argues sentence within guidelines is reasonable. | 12-month sentence within Guidelines is substantively reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Nix, 438 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir. 2006) (whether all civil rights or subset must be restored for §921(a)(20) applicability)
- United States v. Tait, 202 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2000) (unreserved restoration of civil rights triggers §921(a)(20))
- United States v. Brown, 408 F.3d 1016 (8th Cir. 2005) (restoration of voting alone insufficient under §921(a)(20))
- United States v. Huff, 370 F.3d 454 (5th Cir. 2004) (only voting restored not enough under §921(a)(20))
- United States v. Horodner, 91 F.3d 1319 (9th Cir. 1996) (civil rights not substantially restored if one key right missing)
- United States v. Maines, 20 F.3d 1102 (10th Cir. 1994) (§921(a)(20) not satisfied when key rights not restored)
- United States v. Essig, 10 F.3d 968 (3d Cir. 1993) (§921(a)(20) not satisfied when jury right not restored)
- United States v. Hassan El, 5 F.3d 726 (4th Cir. 1993) (§921(a)(20) not satisfied where jury right not restored)
- United States v. Betancourth, 554 F.3d 1329 (11th Cir. 2009) (jurisdiction challenges non-jurisdictional waiver issues)
- United States v. Bell, 22 F.3d 274 (11th Cir. 1994) (unconditional guilty plea does not waive jurisdiction challenges)