United States v. Gary
The Facts
Brandon Gary pleaded guilty in 2018 to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), before the Supreme Court held in Rehaif v. United States (2019) that the government must prove the defendant knew he belonged to the prohibited category -- here, that he had a prior felony conviction. Because Gary did not object to the Rehaif error at trial, the question was whether the error amounted to plain error warranting reversal, or whether it could be deemed harmless given that his prior felony conviction was clearly established.
The Application
Gary's failure to object at trial meant the Rehaif error was reviewed for plain error, requiring him to demonstrate that he would not have pleaded guilty absent the instructional deficiency, a demanding standard. Since Gary's prior felony conviction was clearly documented and undisputed, he could not credibly argue prejudice by pointing to genuine factual ambiguity about his status, making reversal extremely unlikely. Although the Court confirmed that Rehaif errors occurring before the decision can be challenged on appeal under plain error review, the practical path to reversal narrows sharply for defendants whose disqualifying status was never factually contested.
The Conclusion
**Decided June 14, 2021. The Court held that Rehaif errors in guilty pleas are subject to plain error review and that the error alone does not automatically require reversal.** A defendant must show prejudice, a reasonable probability that but for the error they would not have pleaded guilty. For most defendants with clear prior felony records, that showing will be very difficult to make. The ruling significantly limited the practical impact of Rehaif for defendants seeking to challenge pre-Rehaif guilty pleas.
No circuit court data for this case.
Case Analysis
Overview
The Supreme Court addressed how federal courts should review a district court's failure to advise a defendant of the knowledge-of-status element in a felon-in-possession charge. An error identified in Rehaif v. United States (2019). When the defendant pleaded guilty before that decision, determining whether the unobjected-to Rehaif error was subject to plain error review and whether a conviction could be affirmed despite the instructional deficiency.
Facts
Brandon Gary pleaded guilty in 2018 to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), before the Supreme Court held in Rehaif v. United States (2019) that the government must prove the defendant knew he belonged to the prohibited category. Here, that he had a prior felony conviction. Because Gary did not object to the Rehaif error at trial, the question was whether the error amounted to plain error warranting reversal, or whether it could be deemed harmless given that his prior felony conviction was clearly established.
Issue
Whether a district court's failure to instruct a jury or advise a defendant at a guilty plea on the knowledge-of-status element required by Rehaif v. United States constitutes plain error requiring reversal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b), and what showing of prejudice is required for a defendant who did not object to the error at trial.
Rule
Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b), plain error review requires showing: (1) error, (2) that is plain, (3) that affects substantial rights, and (4) that seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Rehaif v. United States (2019) held that § 922(g) requires the government to prove the defendant knew of the status that made gun possession unlawful. A defendant seeking reversal under plain error must typically show a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different had the error not occurred.
Analysis
Gary's failure to object at trial meant the Rehaif error was reviewed for plain error, requiring him to demonstrate that he would not have pleaded guilty absent the instructional deficiency. A demanding standard. Since Gary's prior felony conviction was clearly documented and undisputed, he could not credibly argue prejudice by pointing to genuine factual ambiguity about his status, making reversal extremely unlikely. Although the Court confirmed that Rehaif errors occurring before the decision can be challenged on appeal under plain error review, the practical path to reversal narrows sharply for defendants whose disqualifying status was never factually contested.
Conclusion
**Decided June 14, 2021. The Court held that Rehaif errors in guilty pleas are subject to plain error review and that the error alone does not automatically require reversal.** A defendant must show prejudice. A reasonable probability that but for the error they would not have pleaded guilty. For most defendants with clear prior felony records, that showing will be very difficult to make. The ruling significantly limited the practical impact of Rehaif for defendants seeking to challenge pre-Rehaif guilty pleas.
Notes
OT2020. Added via SCOTUS bulk import 2026-05-14
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support