United States v. Corion Leshon Moore, 19-11389

Moore was charged with multiple drug-distribution counts and one count of being a felon in possession of firearms; an §851 information alleged multiple prior drug convictions.
Law enforcement made two controlled buys of small amounts of methamphetamine from Moore at his home; the next day a search found 37.8 grams of methamphetamine near a digital scale, plastic baggies, and three guns.
At trial Moore requested a lesser-included instruction for simple possession under 21 U.S.C. § 844(a); the district court denied it.
The jury convicted Moore of possession with intent to distribute (less than five grams) and felon-in-possession. The district court sentenced him to 180 months and 6 years supervised release.
Five days after judgment the court sua sponte amended the written judgment to add a special supervised-release condition requiring participation in a drug-treatment program; this condition was not orally pronounced.
On appeal the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the convictions, held any Rehaif error was harmless, vacated the amended written judgment, and remanded for the written judgment to conform to the oral sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Moore)	Defendant's Argument (Government)	Held
Whether the court erred by refusing a lesser-included instruction for simple possession	Jury could rationally find the 37.8 g was for personal use; instruction required	Evidence (controlled buys from same home, scale, baggies, guns, expert testimony) created strong inference of intent to distribute, so instruction not warranted	Affirmed: court erred in rationale but denial upheld because evidence did not justify lesser-included instruction
Whether omission of Rehaif mens rea instruction for § 922(g)(1) requires reversal	Omission deprived jury of required knowledge element; reversible error	Rehaif error is plain but harmless because Moore stipulated to prior felonies and record shows he knew he was a felon	Affirmed: Rehaif error plain but did not affect substantial rights; conviction stands
Whether the written amended judgment’s drug-treatment special condition conflicts with the oral sentence	Amended judgment imposed a special condition not pronounced orally and was entered without notice or hearing	Government agrees the written condition conflicts and should be corrected	Vacated in part: remand for the district court to amend the written judgment to conform to the oral pronouncement

Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) (requiring government prove defendant knew status element for § 922(g) offenses)
Greer v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 2090 (2021) (plain‑error review framework for Rehaif claims; defendant must show reasonable probability of acquittal)
United States v. Lee, 68 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 1995) (no lesser-included instruction where evidence strongly supported intent to distribute)
United States v. Williams, 197 F.3d 1091 (11th Cir. 1999) (standard for entitlement to lesser-included instruction)
United States v. Bates, 213 F.3d 1336 (11th Cir. 2000) (oral pronouncement controls over conflicting written judgment)
United States v. Chavez, 204 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2000) (remedy is limited remand to conform written judgment to oral sentence)
United States v. Gibbs, 904 F.2d 52 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (example where quantity and circumstances supported a simple-possession instruction)