United States v. Dan Reed, 941 F.3d 1018

Reed was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for being a felon in possession of a firearm; he later appealed after the Supreme Court decided Rehaif.
Before trial Reed stipulated he had prior felony convictions and that his civil rights (including firearms rights) had not been restored; the indictment thus redacted the specific prior-conviction allegations.
At trial Reed admitted on cross-examination that he knew he was not supposed to have the gun and asserted a justification defense based on a prior violent encounter.
The district court instructed the jury that Reed must have “knowingly possessed” the firearm but did not instruct the jury to find that Reed knew he was a felon; the government also did not have to prove that knowledge at trial.
The presentence report and sentencing proceedings reflected lengthy prior incarcerations (including an unobjected-to statement that Reed served over 18 years), which the Eleventh Circuit treated as admitted for sentencing.
On remand following Rehaif the parties agreed plain error occurred by omitting the knowledge-of-status element, but disputed whether that error affected Reed’s substantial rights; the court affirmed the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Rehaif element: whether government must prove defendant knew he was a felon	Reed: Rehaif requires proof the defendant knew his prohibited status; indictment and instructions were therefore erroneous	United States: concedes Rehaif error occurred but disputes prejudice	Court: Rehaif applies on direct appeal; indictment and jury instruction errors were plain
Plain-error prejudice: whether the omission affected substantial rights	Reed: omission warrants vacatur or new trial because knowledge-of-status was not proven	United States: entire record (stipulation, testimony, PSR admissions) shows Reed knew his status so no reasonable probability of a different outcome	Court: Reed cannot show a reasonable probability the outcome would differ; no plain-error prejudice; substantial rights not affected
Sufficiency of record to establish knowledge-of-status	Reed: argues government did not have to and did not prove he knew he was a felon	United States: points to stipulation, Reed’s admission he knew he shouldn’t possess the gun, and sentencing/PSR admissions of long-term imprisonment	Court: record establishes Reed knew he was a felon; knowledge element supported by the whole record
Remedy: whether to exercise discretion to correct error	Reed: requests vacatur or new trial	United States: opposes remedy given lack of prejudice	Court: declines to correct error in exercise of discretion; conviction affirmed

Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) (holding government must prove defendant knew his status as a person barred from possessing a firearm)
Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (standard for showing a reasonable probability that an error affected substantial rights)
Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error review framework)
Vonn v. United States, 535 U.S. 55 (2002) (appellate plain-error review may consult the whole record)
Young v. United States, 470 U.S. 1 (1985) (must view claimed errors against the entire record in plain-error review)
Dominguez Benitez v. United States, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (entire-record inquiry in reviewing omitted Rule 11 warnings and prejudice)
United States v. Jackson, 120 F.3d 1226 (11th Cir. 1997) (pre‑Rehaif precedent holding defendant need not know felon status for § 922(g) — abrogated by Rehaif)
United States v. Wade, 458 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2006) (unobjected-to facts in PSI are admitted for sentencing)
United States v. Reed, [citation="752 F. App'x 851"] (11th Cir. 2018) (prior panel opinion affirming conviction before Rehaif and Supreme Court remand)