UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark Hirsch HORODNER, Defendant-Appellant

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that section 921(a)(20) was not satisfied where defendant had his rights to vote and hold office restored but not his right to sit on a jury
• reasoning that “civil rights were not substantially restored” and § 921(a)(20) was not satisfied where a defendant’s right to vote and to hold public office had been restored but his right to serve on a jury had not
• where state law did not preclude felon’s right to vote or to hold public office, but did preclude his jury service, his “civil rights were not substantially restored” and so he did not come within section 921(a)(20

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).