USA v. McReynolds, et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
v.
Alvin Anthony Watkins, Jr. (2),
Defendant.
Case No. 25-cr-225 (PJS/DJF)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Alvin Anthony Watkins’ Motion to Dismiss
Indictment (“Motion to Dismiss”) (ECF No. 38). Mr. Watkins is charged with being a felon in
possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8). (ECF No. 1 at 6.)
This charge stems from a shooting that occurred on the night of March 10, 2025 at a community
barbecue hosted by 21 Days of Peace, a community-violence-intervention initiative. (Id. at 1, 3.)
Mr. Watkins, a violence interrupter for 21 Days of Peace, was working1 at the barbecue along with
Defendant Kashmir Khaliffa McReynolds, who also worked for 21 Days of Peace. (Id. at 2-3.)
Approximately 36 minutes after Defendants ended their shifts, Mr. Watkins, Mr. McReynolds, and
others were still at the barbecue when an unknown shooter fired a barrage of approximately 30
bullets in their direction. (Id. at 3.) Several of these shots struck Mr. McReynolds in the neck and
torso. (Id.) Mr. McReynolds took cover and began to return fire with a handgun he was carrying
pursuant to a legal permit. (Id. at 3-5.) Mr. Watkins initially fled the scene, but he returned to
help Mr. McReynolds. (Id. at 4.) Mr. McReynolds told Mr. Watkins to grab a weapon from Mr.
1 To the extent there is any dispute as to whether Defendants were working at the barbecue
or merely attending as social participants, the Court accepts the allegations in the Indictment as
true for purposes of this motion.
CASE 0:25-cr-00225-PJS-DJF Doc. 59 Filed 11/06/25 Page 1 of 3

2
McReynolds’ vehicle and to load it. (Id.) Mr. Watkins did so and fired it. (Id. at 5.) After the
two men had fired approximately 43 rounds of ammunition, they got in their vehicles and left the
scene. (Id.) Mr. Watkins had several prior felony convictions at the time of the shooting. (Id. at
2, 6.)
Mr. Watkins’ Motion seeks to dismiss the sole charge against him on the ground that the
felon-in-possession statute violates the Second Amendment of the Constitution. (ECF No. 38 at
1.) In United States v. Jackson, 110 F.4th 1120, 1129 (8th Cir. 2024), the Eighth Circuit clearly
held that the felon-in-possession statute does not violate the Second Amendment. 	The Court is
bound by that precedent, and for this reason, Mr. Watkins’ constitutional challenge fails. 	See
Xiong v. Minnesota, 195 F.3d 424, 426 (8th Cir. 1999) (holding that a district court “ha[s] no power
to replace governing circuit law with its own view.”).2 	The Court therefore recommends Mr.
Watkins’ Motion be denied.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendant Alvin Anthony Watkins, Jr.’s Motion to Dismiss
the Indictment (ECF No. 38) be DENIED.
Dated: November 6, 2025 	s/ Dulce J. Foster
Dulce J. Foster
United States Magistrate Judge
2 Mr. Watkins acknowledges that this precedent forecloses his argument and raises it to
preserve it for a potential appeal. (ECF No. 38 at 2.)
CASE 0:25-cr-00225-PJS-DJF Doc. 59 Filed 11/06/25 Page 2 of 3

3
NOTICE
Filing Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the
District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve specific written objections to a
magistrate judge’s proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days after being served a
copy” of the Report and Recommendation. 	A party may respond to those objections within 14
days after being served a copy of the objections. See Local Rule 72.2(b)(2). All objections and
responses must comply with the word or line limits set forth in Local Rule 72.2(c).
CASE 0:25-cr-00225-PJS-DJF Doc. 59 Filed 11/06/25 Page 3 of 3