Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): and found no authority for the proposition that a Hawaii pardon would not allow Plaintiff to purchase firearms in other states because the pardon would only be given effect in Hawaii. In fact, some decisions suggest that a foreign state may give effect to a Hawaii pardon and allow Plaintiff to acquire firearms in that state. See, e.g., Schlenther v. Dep’t of State, Division of Licensing, 743 So.2d 536, 537 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1998) (finding that the State of Florida improperly denied plaintiffs application for a concealed-weapons permit because once a sister state has restored a person’s firearms rights, Florida was required to give “full faith and credit” to the restoration of such rights); People v. Van Heck, 252 Mich.App. 207, 208-09, 214 & 217, 651 N.W.2d 174 (Mich.Ct.App.2002) (<HOLDING>). As such, the Court finds that Plaintiff could 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that michigan must give full effect to a connecticut pardon because connecticut law removes all legal disabilities that flow from the pardoned conviction and therefore a pardoned individual is no longer considered by the law to have been convicted or otherwise adjudicated guilty of the pardoned crime (B) holding that under michigan law evidence of other products to which the plaintiff may have been exposed is relevant to rebut the plaintiffs claim (C) holding that to constitute a prior conviction for purposes of the habitual felony offender act the defendant must have been adjudicated guilty before the present crime was committed (D) holding that pardon relieves the recipient upon subsequent conviction of another crime of the additional punishment provided by statute for a second offense (E) holding that once the statute is found to be divisible the court must look to the charging papers and judgment of conviction to determine if the actual crime of which defendant was convicted was a crime of violence but emphasizing that the court is not to examine the particular facts underlying the conviction
Output (English): holding that under michigan law evidence of other products to which the plaintiff may have been exposed is relevant to rebut the plaintiffs claim