United States v. Jackson, 3:17-cr-00810

Swan Nicoyis Jackson was indicted for being a felon in possession (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2)), possession with intent to distribute marijuana, and a related § 924(c) count; he pleaded guilty to Counts 1 and 2 under a plea agreement and did not appeal.
At the plea colloquy the court followed then-governing Fourth Circuit law and did not advise Jackson that the Government must prove he knew his felony status when possessing the firearm (the Rehaif element).
After Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), Jackson filed a timely § 2255 motion arguing his Count 1 plea/conviction was invalid for lack of the Rehaif instruction; the Government moved for summary judgment asserting procedural default and, alternatively, lack of prejudice.
The Government conceded Rehaif is retroactive but argued Rehaif requires knowledge of status only (not knowledge that possession was unlawful) and that Jackson procedurally defaulted by not raising Rehaif on direct review.
The court held (1) Rehaif's knowledge requirement extends to a defendant’s status (e.g., being a felon) but does not require proof that the defendant knew his possession was unlawful; (2) Jackson procedurally defaulted and failed to show cause or actual prejudice; and (3) summary judgment granted and § 2255 dismissed with prejudice.

Issue	Jackson's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Scope of Rehaif knowledge element	Court should have advised Jackson he must have known both his prior felony and that that status made possession unlawful	Rehaif requires knowledge of one’s status (e.g., being a felon), not knowledge that possession was illegal	Rehaif requires knowledge of status only; no requirement to prove defendant knew possession was unlawful
Procedural default of Rehaif claim	Rehaif-based § 2255 timely; merits should be reached	Jackson procedurally defaulted by not raising Rehaif on direct appeal and must show cause and prejudice or actual innocence	Jackson procedurally defaulted; must show cause and prejudice or actual innocence; he did not show cause
Presumption of prejudice for Rehaif error on collateral review	Relies on Gary: Rehaif error is structural so prejudice presumed	Structural-error presumption on direct review does not relieve collateral-review burden; must prove actual prejudice	On collateral review defendant must show actual and substantial prejudice; presumed prejudice does not apply
Whether Jackson proved actual prejudice	(No showing made) — argued general Rehaif relief	Evidence (admissions, signed DOC materials, sentencing benefits) shows no reasonable probability he would have rejected plea or been acquitted	Jackson failed to prove actual prejudice; plea provided better outcome and Government could prove knowledge-of-status; § 2255 denied

Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) (holds § 924(a)(2) mens rea applies to both possession and the defendant’s status)
Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) (collateral-review default rule: guilt-plea challenges require cause and prejudice absent actual innocence)
Weaver v. Massachusetts, 137 S. Ct. 1899 (2017) (structural error preserved on direct review differs from structural error raised on collateral review; collateral review often requires a showing of prejudice)
Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184 (1998) (distinguishes knowledge and willfulness; ignorance of law generally not a defense absent willfulness)
United States v. Bostic, 168 F.3d 718 (4th Cir. 1999) (knowledge mens rea does not require awareness of illegality for § 922(g) prosecutions)
United States v. Lockhart, 947 F.3d 187 (4th Cir. 2020) (recognizes Rehaif abrogated prior Fourth Circuit precedent on knowledge-of-status)
United States v. Gary, 954 F.3d 194 (4th Cir. 2020) (on direct review held Rehaif error is structural; prejudice presumed)
United States v. Collins, 982 F.3d 236 (4th Cir. 2020) (post-Rehaif harmless-error analysis where status knowledge was established via conviction for related count)
Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (2017) (prejudice in plea-context shown where defendant demonstrated reasonable probability he would have rejected plea if warned of a particular consequence)