United States v. Games-Perez
695 F.3d 1104
10th Cir.2012Background
- This case concerns a petition for rehearing en banc in United States v. Games-Perez; the court denied en banc review after a panel affirmed the conviction.
- Games-Perez argued that knowledge of felon status is required under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2); the panel relied on circuit precedent (Capps) to hold no such mental-state requirement existed.
- Games-Perez had entered a conditional guilty plea under Rule 11(a)(2) and reserved appellate review; the district court’s order denied his motion in limine, and the panel majority affirmed.
- The Dissent argued the plain-language view is correct and would overrule Capps; the majority rejected this argument as waived/forfeited.
- Procedural impediments cited include waiver/forfeiture under Rule 52(a) and the adversarial process, and the court declined to address the merits en banc because the issue was not properly preserved in the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether knowledge of felon status is an element under §922(g)(1) via §924(a)(2). | Games-Perez argues plain-language requires this knowledge. | The panel majority holds knowledge of felon status is not an element. | Denied en banc; knowledge not required by panel precedent. |
| Whether Games-Perez preserved the plain-language challenge for en banc review. | Games-Perez reserved the issue via conditional plea and panel concurrence. | Waiver under Rule 11 and forfeiture apply; issue not preserved. | Waived/forfeited; not appropriate for en banc review. |
| Whether the court should overrule Capps to adopt a plain-language reading. | Capps is contradicted by statutory text and canons of interpretation. | Capps is longstanding circuit precedent and should be followed. | Not overruled; en banc review denied. |
| Whether it was appropriate to hear this issue en banc given potential circuit splits and stare decisis. | Overruling would correct an injustice and align with Congress’s text. | Creates circuit split and unsettles settled practice. | En banc review denied; concerns about circuit harmony and stare decisis favored denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Capps, 77 F.3d 350 (10th Cir. 1996) (knowledge of felon status not element of §922(g)(1))
- Langley v. United States, 62 F.3d 602 (4th Cir. 1995) (ambiguous statute due to insertion of 'knowingly' in §924(a) amid penalties)
- United States v. Charley, 189 F.3d 1251 (10th Cir. 1999) (acknowledges waiver/forfeiture issues in rehearing context)
- Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) (plain-error review; no unwarranted exceptions to Rule 52(b))
- United States v. Richison, 634 F.3d 1123 (10th Cir. 2011) (plain-error standard; forfeiture considerations in criminal appeals)
- United States v. Platte, 401 F.3d 1176 (10th Cir. 2005) (ignorance of the law not defense; mens rea core concepts)
- United States v. Sherbondy, 865 F.2d 996 (9th Cir. 1988) (discussion of whether mens rea attaches to certain penalties (contextual))
- Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994) (presumption of mens rea attaching to statutory elements)