United States v. Michael Gary, 954 F.3d 194

Michael Gary was arrested twice in 2017; officers recovered firearms and marijuana; he had a prior unpardoned felony conviction.
Indicted in federal court for two counts under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (possession of a firearm and ammunition by a person convicted of a felony).
Gary pleaded guilty without a plea agreement; the Rule 11 colloquy omitted the Rehaif knowledge-of-status element (that defendant knew he belonged to the prohibited class).
District court accepted the plea and sentenced Gary to 84 months concurrent on each count.
While Gary’s appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided Rehaif and this Circuit decided Lockhart en banc; Gary argued those decisions rendered his plea unknowing and invalid.
The Fourth Circuit held the plea was not knowingly and intelligently made, characterized the omission as a structural constitutional error, vacated the plea and convictions, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether acceptance of a guilty plea without advising of Rehaif knowledge-of-status element was plain error and whether that error affected substantial rights (i.e., requires vacatur)	Gary: omission meant plea was not knowing and intelligent; a constitutionally invalid plea is structural and requires vacatur regardless of evidence of guilt	Government: error was plain but did not affect substantial rights because overwhelming record evidence showed Gary knew his felony status	Court: error was plain and structural; it deprived Gary of the autonomy to make an informed plea, so substantial-rights prong is satisfied and the court exercised discretion to vacate plea and convictions

Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (Sup. Ct. 2019) (knowledge of prohibited status is an element of § 922(g) offenses)
United States v. Lockhart, 947 F.3d 187 (4th Cir. 2020) (en banc) (addressed Rehaif impact on guilty plea; found plain error in that case)
Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (Sup. Ct. 1993) (plain error review framework)
Dominguez Benitez v. United States, 542 U.S. 74 (Sup. Ct. 2004) (prejudice requirement for Rule 11 errors; reasonable-probability standard)
Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (Sup. Ct. 1998) (guilty plea must be voluntary and intelligent; notice of true nature of charge required)
Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637 (Sup. Ct. 1976) (invalidated plea when defendant not informed of mens rea element)
Weaver v. Massachusetts, 137 S. Ct. 1899 (Sup. Ct. 2017) (structural-error rationales; defendant autonomy interest)
McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S. Ct. 1500 (Sup. Ct. 2018) (attorney admission of guilt over defendant objection is structural error protecting autonomy)
Gonzalez-Lopez v. Gomez, 548 U.S. 140 (Sup. Ct. 2006) (denial of counsel choice; effects too hard to measure supports structural error)
United States v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (Sup. Ct. 1991) (distinction between trial errors and structural errors)
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (Sup. Ct. 1999) (structural errors undermine the reliability of guilt determination)