United States v. Robert Brandon, 965 F.3d 427

In October 2018 Brandon was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for being a felon in possession of a .38 caliber revolver; he pleaded guilty on December 17, 2018 without a plea agreement.
At plea Brandon stipulated that officers stopped his vehicle, a drug dog alerted, officers found methamphetamine and a revolver under the front passenger seat, and Brandon admitted he had the gun and handed it to a passenger to hide.
Criminal-history checks and the PSR showed a 2008 Texas conviction for Burglary of a Building (a state jail felony) with a Judgment of Conviction signed and thumbprinted by Brandon; he received probation that was later revoked in 2009.
The district court accepted Brandon’s plea, later sentenced him to 30 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release, and Brandon appealed.
After sentencing the Supreme Court decided Rehaif (requiring proof that a § 922(g) defendant knew his prohibited status), and Brandon argued plain error because the plea colloquy did not establish his knowledge of felon status at the time of possession.
The Fifth Circuit concluded the district court erred under Rehaif but that the record (state-court judgment, probation-revocation acknowledgment, and Brandon’s conduct at arrest) established he knew his status, so the error did not affect his substantial rights and the conviction was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court plainly erred in accepting the guilty plea because the record did not establish, per Rehaif, that Brandon knew he was a felon when he possessed the firearm	Brandon argued the plea colloquy did not show he knew his prior conviction was punishable by >1 year and thus did not satisfy Rehaif’s scienter requirement	Government argued the whole record (state judgment labeling the offense a felony, probation revocation admissions, and Brandon’s evasive conduct/attempt to conceal the gun) shows he knew his status, so any error was harmless	Court: Error under Rehaif was clear, but no plain error relief — the record shows Brandon knew his status and there is no reasonable probability he would have refused the plea, so conviction affirmed

Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) (§ 922(g) requires proof defendant knew he belonged to the prohibited class)
Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018) (standard for whether to correct plain error)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error framework and substantial-rights inquiry)
Olano, United States v., 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error doctrine exposition)
Dominguez Benitez v. United States, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (reasonable-probability standard for prejudice from plea-process errors)
United States v. Lavalais, 960 F.3d 180 (5th Cir. 2020) (applying Rehaif on direct appeal)
United States v. Hicks, 958 F.3d 399 (5th Cir. 2020) (finding knowledge of status from record and conduct)
United States v. Ortiz, 927 F.3d 868 (5th Cir. 2019) (permitting appellate courts to scan the full record for facts supporting a plea)
United States v. Garcia-Paulin, 627 F.3d 127 (5th Cir. 2010) (comparing admitted conduct to charged elements to assess factual-basis sufficiency)