Porter v. Nash

Filing 27

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 25 Report and Recommendations. For these reasons, the R&R is adopted and this petition is dismissed. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 11/19/2021 (LAT)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION RICHARD PORTER PETITIONER V. CAUSE NO. 3:19-CV-500-CWR-FKB CHERON Y. NASH RESPONDENT ORDER Before the Court are the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (R&R), Docket No. 25, and petitioner Richard Porter’s objection to that R&R, Docket No. 26. Porter presents an interesting argument: whether receiving Louisiana’s first-offender pardon rendered him eligible to lawfully possess a firearm, making his subsequent federal felon-inpossession conviction invalid under Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019). See also United States v. Viola, 768 F. App’x 238 (5th Cir. 2019). Because the Court thinks that the answer to this question is, on this record, “no,” it adopts the R&R and dismisses this petition. There are at least two potential problems with accepting Porter’s premise. First, the PSR shows that Porter did not satisfactorily complete the terms of Louisiana Constitution article I, § 20 and the first-offender pardon, in that his parole was revoked. See Docket No. 13-2 at 4. Second, even assuming that the Louisiana Division of Probation and Parole’s certificate fully restored Porter’s rights after his armed robbery convictions, see Docket No. 26 at 8, he does not then contend that the state government restored his rights again after his next felony conviction—this time for drug possession. See Docket No. 13-2 at 4. The better view of the record is that, at least by then, there could be no doubt that Porter’s rights were not fully restored. For these reasons, the R&R is adopted and this petition is dismissed. SO ORDERED, this the 19th day of November, 2021. s/ Carlton W. Reeves UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?