USA v. McReynolds, et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALVIN ANTHONY WATKINS, JR.,
Defendant.
Case No. 25ȬCRȬ0225(2) (PJS/DJF)
ORDER
Defendant Alvin Watkins, Jr., is charged with being a felon in possession of a
firearm. This matter is before the Court on two objections: (1) the government’s
objection to the November 5, 2025, oral order of Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster and
(2) Watkins’s objection to Judge Foster’s November 6, 2025, Report and
Recommendation.
With respect to the government’s objection: Judge Foster granted in part
Watkins’s motion to compel disclosures under Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150
(1972). ECF No. 64 at 7–8. Following the hearing at which Judge Foster ruled on the
motion—but before filing its objection—the government complied with the order. ECF
No. 62 at 1. After the government filed its objection, Watkins withdrew his Giglio
motion, noting that the government had provided the requested disclosures and
therefore his request for relief was moot. ECF No. 65.
-1-
CASE 0:25-cr-00225-PJS-DJF Doc. 67 Filed 12/30/25 Page 1 of 3

The government objects to Judge Foster’s order on the ground that “the Court is
without authority to compel the government to make requests to agencies for
impeachment information at this stage of the case.” ECF No. 62 at 1. Given that both
sides agree that the government has complied with the order, and given that Watkins
has now withdrawn his motion, there is no longer a live controversy between the
parties as to this issue. The Court therefore overrules the government’s objection as
moot.
With respect to Watkins’s objection: Watkins moves to dismiss the indictment
against him on the ground that the felonȬinȬpossession statute violates the Second
Amendment. He objects to Judge Foster’s recommendation to deny that motion. As
Watkins acknowledges, his argument is foreclosed by existing Eighth Circuit precedent.
ECF No. 63. The Court agrees, see United States v. Jackson, 110 F.4th 1120, 1129 (8th Cir.
2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 2708 (2025), and his objection is therefore overruled.
ORDER
Based on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT:
1. 	The government’s objection [ECF No. 62] is OVERRULED as moot.
2. 	Defendant’s objection [ECF No. 63] is OVERRULED and the Report and
Recommendation [ECF No. 59] is ADOPTED.
-2-
CASE 0:25-cr-00225-PJS-DJF Doc. 67 Filed 12/30/25 Page 2 of 3

3. 	Defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment [ECF No. 38] is DENIED.
Dated: December 30, 2025 	/s/ Patrick J. Schiltz
Patrick J. Schiltz, Chief Judge
United States District Court
-3-
CASE 0:25-cr-00225-PJS-DJF Doc. 67 Filed 12/30/25 Page 3 of 3