Isaac Seabrooks v. United States, 32 F.4th 1375

Seabrooks and co-defendant Nigel Butler were indicted on two counts: felon-in-possession (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)) and possession of a stolen firearm; Butler pled guilty, Seabrooks went to trial.
Police found three guns in the Cadillac Butler was driving while Seabrooks sat in the front passenger seat; the truck owner identified the guns as his.
Seabrooks made post-arrest statements admitting he touched a small gun and that Butler handed him a pouch containing a pistol which Seabrooks placed in the center armrest; he denied participating in the theft.
The jury was given, over Seabrooks’s objection, an aiding-and-abetting instruction (though Seabrooks was not charged as an aider/abettor); the prosecutor urged the jury to use that alternative theory if possession was doubtful.
During deliberations the jury asked whether mere receipt/touch/inspection equals possession; the court answered that mere inspection alone is insufficient; the jury convicted on both counts but did not specify the theory.
On § 2255 review after Rehaif, the Eleventh Circuit held Rehaif applies retroactively to initial § 2255 motions, Seabrooks’s Rehaif claim was not procedurally barred or defaulted, and the erroneous aiding-and-abetting instruction was not harmless — vacating the felon-in-possession conviction and remanding.

Issue	Seabrooks' Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Does Rehaif apply retroactively to an initial §2255 motion?	Rehaif announces a new substantive rule narrowing §922(g) and thus applies retroactively.	Rehaif is not retroactive (district court initially held this).	Rehaif is a new substantive rule and applies retroactively to initial §2255 motions.
Is Seabrooks’s Rehaif claim procedurally barred or defaulted?	Not barred — Rehaif is intervening law excusing any prior procedural bar; government waived procedural-default defense.	Claim is defaulted/ barred because issue was addressed on direct appeal or not preserved.	Claim is neither procedurally barred nor defaulted; government waived affirmative defense and Rehaif is intervening change.
Was the aiding-and-abetting instruction harmless error under Rehaif?	Error was not harmless because government’s principal-possession evidence was weak and prosecutor emphasized the aiding-and-abetting theory; jury likely relied on it.	Conviction stands on principal liability; any error was harmless given record.	Error not harmless; grave doubt jury relied on invalid aiding-and-abetting instruction — conviction vacated.

Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) (gov’t must prove defendant knew he belonged to a class barred from firearm possession)
Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. 65 (2014) (aiding-and-abetting requires intent covering the entire crime)
Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (2004) (new substantive rules generally apply retroactively on collateral review)
Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) (decisions that change elements of offense can render convictions invalid)
Granda v. United States, 990 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2021) (harmless-error test when conviction may rest on invalid predicate)
United States v. Seabrooks, 839 F.3d 1326 (11th Cir. 2016) (Seabrooks’s direct-appeal decision addressing aiding-and-abetting instruction)
Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333 (1974) (intervening change in law can excuse prior procedural bars)