963 F.3d 420
4th Cir.2020Background
- Case arises from United States v. Gary and the court’s panel holding that a Rehaif error is a structural error not reviewable for harmlessness or under plain-error standards.
- Gary had prior convictions (second-degree burglary and two assaults), served roughly nine years in prison, and at a 2017 sentencing admitted he knew it was wrong to possess a firearm.
- The Supreme Court in Rehaif v. United States requires the government to prove a defendant knew of his felony status for a § 922(g) offense.
- The Fourth Circuit panel treated a Rehaif error as structural; rehearing en banc was denied and Judge Wilkinson filed a concurrence urging Supreme Court review.
- Wilkinson argues the panel’s structural-error holding conflicts with other circuits and Supreme Court precedent, and that Gary’s record (admissions and prior convictions) shows no reasonable probability the plea would have differed.
- Wilkinson emphasizes finality concerns, workload/resource burdens from reopening pleas, and the traditional fact-specific standards (Olano, Dominguez-Benitez) for plea-related errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gary) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Rehaif error is a structural error immune from harmless/plain-error review | Rehaif error is structural and requires automatic vacatur | Rehaif error is not structural; it is subject to harmless or plain-error review | Panel held Rehaif error structural; rehearing en banc denied (Wilkinson disagrees) |
| Whether the Rehaif error affected Gary's substantial rights (Olano/Dominguez-Benitez) | Structural error makes harmless/plain-error analysis inapplicable | Gary’s admissions and prior convictions show no effect on substantial rights; no reasonable probability he would not have pled guilty | Wilkinson: record shows no possible/ reasonable probability that Gary would not have pled; thus no merit to claim |
| Whether an elements error in the guilty-plea context should be treated as structural | Elements error (knowledge-of-status) at plea is structural and mandates vacatur | Elements errors in plea cases are fact-dependent and assessed under Dominguez-Benitez; not automatically structural | Wilkinson: elements errors are generally non-structural; Neder and Dominguez-Benitez foreclose automatic vacatur |
| Whether treating Rehaif error as structural should have retroactive/ widespread effect and permit reopening many pleas | Structural classification permits broader relief and reopening of pleas | Finality and resource constraints counsel against broad retroactivity; fact-specific standards protect truly prejudiced defendants | Rehearing en banc denied; Wilkinson warns of massive finality/resource costs and urges Supreme Court review |
Key Cases Cited
- Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) (holding government must prove defendant knew of felony status under § 922(g))
- United States v. Gary, 954 F.3d 194 (4th Cir. 2020) (panel held Rehaif error structural; subject of concurrence)
- Dominguez Benitez v. United States, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (reasonable-probability standard for vacating a plea based on Rule 11 error)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (omission of an element in instructions is not necessarily structural; harmless-error review applies)
- Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) (structural errors are few and limited)
- Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) (constitutional error does not automatically require reversal)
- United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) (denial of counsel is structural error)
- Weaver v. Massachusetts, 137 S. Ct. 1899 (2017) (structural-error definition: affects framework of trial rather than discrete trial processes)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (certain Sixth Amendment cross-examination limits are non-structural and subject to harmless-error review)
- United States v. Davila, 569 U.S. 597 (2013) (stressing the particular importance of finality of guilty pleas)