United States v. Taleb Jawher, 950 F.3d 576

Jawher entered the U.S. on a B-2 visa in 2007; the visa expired and he remained in the country.
He married a U.S. citizen, filed multiple petitions to adjust status, received a work permit, and was interviewed by USCIS; DHS issued a Notice to Appear in 2015.
In September 2017 Jawher fatally shot a customer; he was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A) for being an alien unlawfully in the U.S. and possessing a firearm.
Jawher pleaded guilty on May 7, 2018; the plea colloquy admitted illegal presence and knowing possession but did not inquire whether Jawher knew he was unlawfully present.
After the Supreme Court decided Rehaif v. United States (2019) (holding the government must prove a defendant knew his prohibited status under § 922(g)), Jawher raised a Rehaif challenge on appeal.
Applying plain-error review, the Eighth Circuit concluded the Rule 11 plea colloquy was deficient under Rehaif, found prejudice, vacated the plea and conviction, and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Rule 11 plea colloquy was sufficient under Rehaif (did court inform defendant of knowledge-of-status element)	Jawher: Court failed to advise or establish factual basis that he knew he was unlawfully present; plea not knowing	Gov: At time of plea law did not require knowledge-of-status; indictment tracked statute; no reversible Rule 11 error	Court: Error was plain under Rehaif; Rule 11 violated; plea vacated
Whether Jawher can show plain-error prejudice (substantial rights) — reasonable probability he would not have pled guilty	Jawher: Long residence, work permit, marriage, pending petitions and USCIS contact support a plausible belief he was legal, so he likely would have gone to trial	Gov: Record could show knowledge or alternate charging theory (§922(g)(5)(B)) so no reasonable probability of different outcome	Court: Jawher carried burden to show reasonable probability of different outcome; substantial-rights prong met
Whether the indictment or alternate subsection §922(g)(5)(B) bars relief	Jawher: Indictment tracked §922(g)(5)(A) and was sufficient	Gov: Indictment also charged §922(g)(5)(B) so Rehaif error immaterial	Court: Declined to rely on gov’t §5(B) argument; found indictment adequate and did not foreclose relief

Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) (government must prove defendant knew his prohibited status under §922(g))
Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error review framework)
United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (defendant shows prejudice in plea context by reasonable probability he would not have pleaded)
United States v. Balde, 943 F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 2019) (Rehaif error in plea colloquy can be plain error; close-status facts may warrant relief)
United States v. Davies, 942 F.3d 871 (8th Cir. 2019) (vacating pre-Rehaif §922(g) conviction where record supported reasonable doubt about knowledge-of-status)
United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543 (8th Cir. 2005) (an error may be ‘‘plain’’ at time of appeal even if not settled at trial)
United States v. Sewell, 513 F.3d 820 (8th Cir. 2008) (indictment is sufficient if it tracks statutory language)
United States v. Dvorak, 617 F.3d 1017 (8th Cir. 2010) (indictment can be sufficient even if it omits an essential knowledge element)