United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1990-03-30
18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: criminal; district court dismissed a three-count indictment because the defendant's civil rights had been restored (921(a)(20)); government appeal; de novo review of statutory construction; result: remanded; claim: (g)(1)
Uncertainty
None recorded
Misfit
The holding concerns the 921(a)(20) conviction-relief exclusion (civil-rights restoration + the "unless expressly provides" proviso), which the law file carries only as an xref on status.g1, not as a declared exception id. The court finds the exclusion's first half MET (rights restored) and its proviso triggered; that internal split cannot be shown, and the restoration facts had to be tagged cuts-against the parent element.
Count I is the same status question under repealed 18 U.S.C. App. 1202(a)(1) (possession, March 1986) and Count III is a false statement to a dealer under 922(a)(6); both dismissals were reversed on the same reasoning, but neither is the 922(g) claim and no declared id covers them. The court expressly does not decide whether the FOPA definition applies to 1202(a)(1) prosecutions.
The decisive "fact" is a provision of state law (Ohio Rev. Code 2923.13), not conduct; quoted only via the sentence that Cassidy had not obtained relief from it. Law-as-fact has no slot (related to the known law-to-law comparison gap).
Basis: dismissal of an indictment, but decided on undisputed matter outside the indictment (the certificate, Ohio statutes), so [law] rather than [pleaded]; one-basis limit (known). Result "remanded": the prosecution won the appeal but nothing has been tried.
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 12
| Case | One applicable prohibited category | Section 925(a)(1) government-use firearm or ammunition exception | Actual or constructive possession | Firearm or ammunition under section 921 | Possession in or affecting commerce | Knowledge of possessing the firearm or ammunition |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Cassidy — 899 F.2d 543 (1990) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1990 (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 7–12 of 12
| Case | Knowledge of the relevant disqualifying status | Second Amendment limit on the unlawful-user theory applied to Hemani | Ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce | Knowing shipping, transportation or receipt | Receipt of the prohibited object | Received object previously shipped or transported across borders |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Cassidy — 899 F.2d 543 (1990) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1990 (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: applied/merits | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: applied/merits | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: applied/merits |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Cassidy — 899 F.2d 543 (1990) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1990 — not reached (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Received object previously shipped or transported across borders | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (g)(1) | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| United States v. Cassidy — 899 F.2d 543 (1990) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1990 — not reached (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Knowing shipping, transportation or receipt | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (g)(1) | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| United States v. Cassidy — 899 F.2d 543 (1990) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1990 — not reached (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Receipt of the prohibited object | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (g)(1) Count II alleges knowing receipt of a firearm shipped in interstate commerce; untried, left for remand. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| United States v. Cassidy — 899 F.2d 543 (1990) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1990 — satisfied · law (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Conviction punishable by more than one year | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; claim: (g)(1); count: Count II (receipt of a firearm, January 3, 1987, charged under 922(g)(1)); subject: count=Count II (receipt of a firearm, January 3, 1987, charged under 922(g)(1)) Two-step reading of the 921(a)(20) exclusion. (1) Civil rights were restored (vote, jury, public office; more than de minimis, not necessarily all rights). (2) But the "unless ... expressly provides" proviso is tested against the whole of the convicting state's law, not just the certificate: Ohio Rev. Code 2923.13 bars drug-trafficking convicts from firearms, so the conviction still counts. Dismissal reversed; the status element stands as a matter of law on undisputed facts. | state-statute-firearms-bar-outside-restoration-certificate | On September 29, 1983, Defendant Calvin Cassidy was convicted in the State of Ohio of trafficking in marijuana, a crime punishable by a prison term in excess of one year.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_899.jsonl#/f2d/899/0543-01; Unicode character offsets [512:682] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f870f0d29235944d266fa7b071046f89b649f06f3bd3e078252be02ac95f747f.Cassidy was released from prison on June 29, 1984 and received a “Restoration to Civil Rights” certificate (the “Restoration Certificate”) from the Ohio Adult Parole Authority which restored “the rights and privileges forfeited by [his] conviction; namely the right to serve on juries and to hold office of honor, trust, or profit.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_899.jsonl#/f2d/899/0543-01; Unicode character offsets [683:1015] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f870f0d29235944d266fa7b071046f89b649f06f3bd3e078252be02ac95f747f.The right to vote was restored automatically by operation of state law upon his release.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_899.jsonl#/f2d/899/0543-01; Unicode character offsets [24708:24796] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f870f0d29235944d266fa7b071046f89b649f06f3bd3e078252be02ac95f747f.Cassidy has not been relieved from state disabilities pursuant to § 2923.14Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_899.jsonl#/f2d/899/0543-01; Unicode character offsets [25247:25322] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f870f0d29235944d266fa7b071046f89b649f06f3bd3e078252be02ac95f747f.If state law has restored civil rights to a felon, without expressly limiting the felon’s firearms privileges, that felon is not subject to federal firearms disabilities.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_899.jsonl#/f2d/899/0543-01; Unicode character offsets [6116:6286] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f870f0d29235944d266fa7b071046f89b649f06f3bd3e078252be02ac95f747f.Hence, if a “convicted felon” has his civil rights restored by operation of state law, with or without a certificate or order documenting the event, we must look to the whole of state law of the state of conviction to determine whether the “convicted felon” is entitled to vote, hold public office and serve on a jury and also whether the “convicted felon” is entitled to exercise the privileges of shipping, transporting, possessing or receiving a firearm.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_899.jsonl#/f2d/899/0543-01; Unicode character offsets [16220:16677] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f870f0d29235944d266fa7b071046f89b649f06f3bd3e078252be02ac95f747f.We also find, however, that because he was expressly restricted under state law from possessing a firearm, he has been convicted of a “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_899.jsonl#/f2d/899/0543-01; Unicode character offsets [18360:18598] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f870f0d29235944d266fa7b071046f89b649f06f3bd3e078252be02ac95f747f. |
| United States v. Cassidy — 899 F.2d 543 (1990) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1990 — not · law (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Conviction punishable by more than one year | not Excluded from merits counts applied / superseded basis: law; claim: (g)(1); count: Counts II and III; opinion: district court (reversed); subject: count=Counts II and III; opinion=district court (reversed) The ruling below (look only to the certificate) that this court reverses. | certificate-silent-on-firearms | The district court held that since the Restoration Certificate did not expressly limit Cassidy’s firearms privileges, Cassidy did not fall within the statutory definition of “convicted felon,” thus requiring dismissal of Counts II and III.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_899.jsonl#/f2d/899/0543-01; Unicode character offsets [2594:2833] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f870f0d29235944d266fa7b071046f89b649f06f3bd3e078252be02ac95f747f. |