Order Denying Motion for Restoration of Civil Rights and Sealing of Criminal Record — United States v. Harrescia Hopkins

Full text

   Case 1:22-cr-00284-SEG-CMS      Document 72     Filed 06/18/26   Page 1 of 5




                    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                    NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
                         ATLANTA DIVISION

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                                                 CRIMINAL ACTION NO.
       v.                                        1:22-CR-00284-SEG-CMS-1

 HARRESCIA HOPKINS,

             Defendant.

                                   ORDER

      This case comes before the Court on Defendant Harrescia Hopkins’s

motion to restore her civil rights and to seal her criminal record. (Doc. 71.) On

June 9, 2023, Ms. Hopkins was sentenced to five months in custody for two

counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. (Doc. 35.) It appears that

she has since served her prison sentence and completed her term of supervised

release. (Doc. 71 at 1.)

      On February 2, 2026, Ms. Hopkins filed a pro se motion to restore her

civil rights and to seal her criminal record. (Doc. 71.) Ms. Hopkins identifies

several career accomplishments and efforts towards rehabilitation that she has

made since completing her sentence. She argues that the continued denial of

her civil rights—specifically, her right to carry firearms—and the public nature

of her criminal record burdens her with undue hardship, limited employment
     Case 1:22-cr-00284-SEG-CMS    Document 72    Filed 06/18/26   Page 2 of 5




opportunities, and difficulty reintegrating into society. (Id. at 2.) Ms. Hopkins

further argues that the relief requested “would not endanger public safety” but

would rather “be consistent with principles of fairness, second chances, and

reintegration.” (Id.) The Government has not responded to the motion.

I.     Restoration of Civil Rights

       Ms. Hopkins seeks, specifically, the restoration of her “right to

carry/firearm rights.”   (Id. at 1.)   Federal law prohibits the possession of

firearms by persons who have been convicted of a crime punishable by

imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.         18 U.S.C. § 922(g).      This

“disability” on a convicted person’s right to possess firearms can be removed if

the person is pardoned, the conviction is expunged, or the person’s civil rights

are restored under federal law. 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20); Beecham v. United

States, 511 U.S. 368, 371–74 (1994).        A person who is prohibited from

possessing firearms may apply to the Attorney General for relief. 18 U.S.C. §

925(c).

       Whether Ms. Hopkins’s rights can be restored is a “complicated

question,” which involves the interpretation of federal law. Beecham, 511 U.S.

at 373 n. *. But Ms. Hopkins has not cited any federal law that authorizes this

Court to restore her right to carry firearms, nor has the Court identified any

such authority. Though district courts may review the Attorney General’s

                                        2
   Case 1:22-cr-00284-SEG-CMS      Document 72    Filed 06/18/26   Page 3 of 5




denial of an application for relief under § 925(c), Ms. Hopkins has not shown

that she has submitted such an application. In fact, “this option has been

‘rendered inoperative’ because Congress has barred the Attorney General from

using appropriated funds to review these applications[.]” United States v.

Dubois, 139 F.4th 887, 898 (11th Cir. 2025) (Pryor, J., concurring) (quoting

Logan v. United States, 552 U.S. 23, 28 n.1 (2007)). Therefore, even if Ms.

Hopkins has applied for relief from a federal firearms disability under § 925(c),

this Court lacks jurisdiction to review her application. See United States v.

Bean, 537 U.S. 71, 76 (2002) (“[M]ere inaction by [Attorney General or

delegate] does not invest a district court with independent jurisdiction to act

on an application.”).

      To the extent Ms. Hopkins is seeking expungement of her conviction, the

Court finds no authority permitting such action. There appears to be no federal

statute to authorize such relief. See United States v. Adalikwu, 757 F. App’x

909, 911 (11th Cir. 2018) (“[Defendant] concedes that federal law does not offer

a specific statute authorizing the general expungement of a criminal record.”).

The Court lacks jurisdiction to expunge Ms. Hopkins’s conviction on equitable

grounds, id. at 912 (citing Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S.

375, 379–80 (1994)), and on constitutional grounds. United States v.

Batmasian, 66 F.4th 1278, 1283 (11th Cir. 2023).

                                       3
      Case 1:22-cr-00284-SEG-CMS     Document 72      Filed 06/18/26   Page 4 of 5




        Ultimately, the Court lacks jurisdiction to restore Ms. Hopkins’s right to

carry a firearm. Although her efforts toward rehabilitation are commendable,

the Court cannot grant her relief without jurisdiction and authority to do so.

Accordingly, Ms. Hopkins’s motion to restore her civil rights is denied.

II.     Sealing of Criminal Record

        “The press and public enjoy a qualified First Amendment right of access

to criminal trial proceedings.” United States v. Ochoa-Vasquez, 428 F.3d 1015,

1028 (11th Cir. 2005) (internal citations omitted). “This right extends not only

to the criminal trial itself, but also to other integral parts of the trial process[.]”

Id. at 1028 n.14. Further, “the press and public’s qualified First Amendment

right to access criminal proceedings extends to the proceedings’ docket sheets.”

Id. at 1029 (citing United States v. Valenti, 987 F.2d 708, 715 (11th Cir. 1993)).

        There is a presumption of openness that “[a] party may overcome . . . if

it can show ‘an overriding interest based on findings that closure is essential

to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.’” Id.

at 1030 (quoting Press-Enter. Co. v. Super. Ct. of Cal., Riverside Cnty., 464 U.S.

501, 510 (1984)).     “When sealing proceedings or documents, a court must

articulate the overriding interest ‘along with findings specific enough that a

reviewing court can determine whether the closure order was properly

entered.’” Id. (quoting Press-Enter. Co., 464 U.S. at 510).

                                          4
       Case 1:22-cr-00284-SEG-CMS   Document 72   Filed 06/18/26   Page 5 of 5




         The Court acknowledges that Ms. Hopkins has completed her sentence

and further acknowledges the reality that a criminal conviction can pose

barriers to employment. However, Ms. Hopkins has not cited any special

circumstances that would warrant the restriction of all public access to the

records of this case. Her interest in furthering her employment prospects and

in her overall rehabilitation exists in nearly every federal criminal case and is

not sufficiently extraordinary to override the presumption of openness in

criminal proceedings. The Court will therefore deny her motion to seal or

restrict her criminal record.

III.     Conclusion

         For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Hopkins’s motion to restore her civil

rights and seal her criminal record is DENIED. (Doc. 71.)

         SO ORDERED this 18th day of June, 2026.



                                     SARAH E. GERAGHTY
                                     United States District Judge




                                        5


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gand.306194.72.0.pdf

Size

105,208 bytes

SHA-256

471b730e066f2198f260eecc7d40d8ebe45b91cbcc3d4b49f14038bd0b4ee26d

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gand.306194.72.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)