Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-14-15092/USCOURTS-ca11-14-15092-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Horton
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]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: 

USCA11 Case: 14-15092 Date Filed: 07/02/2015 Page: 1 of 3
2

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).

USCA11 Case: 14-15092 Date Filed: 07/02/2015 Page: 2 of 3
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.

USCA11 Case: 14-15092 Date Filed: 07/02/2015 Page: 3 of 3