United States v. Gabriel Garcia-Hernandez, 803 F.3d 994

Defendant Gabriel Lazaro Garcia-Hernandez, a convicted felon, was arrested after admitting agents would find multiple firearms at his one-bedroom apartment; agents found a .38 and a .22 rifle (with scratched-out serial number), ammunition, and other firearms in a backpack.
The .22 rifle with the obliterated serial number was located in the bedroom closet among the defendant’s clothes and shoes; additional .22 rounds were in a nearby dresser.
Garcia-Hernandez stipulated to his prior felony conviction precluding firearm possession. He was charged under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), and §§ 922(k), 924(a)(1)(B) for possession of firearms/ammunition and for a firearm with an obliterated serial number.
At trial he did not object to the jury instructions; the jury convicted him on both counts. He appealed, arguing (1) the jury should have been instructed that he knew the firearms/ammunition were in or affecting interstate commerce, and (2) the evidence was insufficient to show he knew the .22’s serial number had been obliterated.
The Eighth Circuit reviewed the instruction issue for plain error and reviewed sufficiency of the evidence de novo (viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether jury should have been instructed that defendant knew firearms/ammunition were in or affecting interstate commerce	Garcia-Hernandez: §924(a)(2)’s “knowingly” requires mens rea as to interstate-commerce element of §922(g)(1)	Government: Knowledge need only apply to possession; interstate-commerce nexus is jurisdictional and requires no mens rea	No plain error; court held §924(a)(2)’s scienter does not extend to §922(g)(1)’s interstate-commerce element
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove defendant knew the .22 rifle’s serial number was obliterated	Garcia-Hernandez: Evidence insufficient to show he possessed the gun long enough or had notice that the serial number was obliterated	Government: Serial number was visibly scratched out, gun was among his personal effects, and he told agents about the guns—permitting an inference he knew	Conviction upheld; a reasonable jury could infer he knew the serial number was obliterated

Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994) (mens rea required where statute criminalizes otherwise lawful conduct involving potentially innocuous items)
Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646 (2009) (presumption of scienter applies to elements that separate lawful from wrongful conduct)
United States v. Menteer, 350 F.3d 767 (8th Cir. 2003) (for felon-in-possession prosecutions, government need only prove defendant knew he possessed a firearm—not that he knew possession was illegal)
United States v. Stone, 706 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2013) (interstate-commerce element of §922(g)(1) is jurisdictional; §924(a)(2)’s scienter does not apply)
United States v. Langley, 62 F.3d 602 (4th Cir. 1995) (historical/legislative analysis concluding mens rea does not apply to §922(g)(1)’s interstate nexus)
United States v. Haile, 685 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2012) (insufficient evidence where defendant lacked opportunity or notice to discover an obliterated serial number)
United States v. Thornton, 463 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 2006) (visible obliteration can permit inference defendant knew serial number was destroyed)