Filed: Jul. 02, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 14-15092 Date Filed: 07/02/2015 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 14-15092 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cr-00427-TWT-CCH-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CHARLES HORTON, a.k.a. Charlie Horton, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia _ (July 2, 2015) Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Ca
Summary: Case: 14-15092 Date Filed: 07/02/2015 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 14-15092 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cr-00427-TWT-CCH-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CHARLES HORTON, a.k.a. Charlie Horton, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia _ (July 2, 2015) Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Cas..
More
Case: 14-15092 Date Filed: 07/02/2015 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-15092
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cr-00427-TWT-CCH-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CHARLES HORTON,
a.k.a. Charlie Horton,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(July 2, 2015)
Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 14-15092 Date Filed: 07/02/2015 Page: 2 of 3
Charles Horton, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his
motion for a new trial based on newly-discovered evidence that his right to vote
was restored before the court convicted him of being a felon in possession of a
firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Specifically, Horton asserts that he
received a document stating that his principal civil liberties had been restored, and
that document did not mention a continuing restriction on his right to own
firearms. Horton argues that, because his right to vote had been restored, his prior
felony conviction did not satisfy § 922(g). Upon review of the record and
consideration of the parties’ briefs, we affirm.
We review the denial of a motion for new trial on the basis of
newly-discovered evidence for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Barsoum,
763 F.3d 1321, 1341 (11th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___,
135 S. Ct. 1883
(2015). To succeed on a motion for new trial based on newly-discovered evidence,
a defendant must prove that (1) the evidence was discovered after trial; (2) the
failure to discover the evidence earlier was not due to a lack of diligence; (3) the
evidence is not merely cumulative or impeaching; (4) the evidence is material; and
(5) the evidence is such that a new trial would probably produce a different result.
Barsoum, 763 F.3d at 1341. “Courts should use great caution in granting such
motions as they are highly disfavored.”
Id. (quotation omitted).
2
Case: 14-15092 Date Filed: 07/02/2015 Page: 3 of 3
It is unlawful for anyone who has previously been convicted of a felony to
possess firearms or ammunition. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Convicted felons whose
civil rights have been restored are excluded from this restriction.
Id. § 921(a)(20).
Horton states that he received a document advising him that his civil rights
had been restored, but the record only shows that he was registered to vote before
he committed the offense conduct. The restoration of a convicted felon’s right to
vote, alone, is not sufficient to satisfy § 921(a)(20). United States v. Thompson,
702 F.3d 604, 608 (11th Cir. 2012). Therefore, a new trial would not produce a
different result. See
Barsoum, 763 F.3d at 1341. Accordingly, the district court
did not err in denying Horton’s motion for a new trial.
AFFIRMED.
3