United States v. Timothy Green, 973 F.3d 208

On June 29, 2017, officers arrested Timothy Green at a Camp Springs, MD property after he removed a loaded handgun from his pocket and placed it on a gazebo shelf.
A federal grand jury indicted Green under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for being a felon in possession; the indictment charged that Green “did knowingly possess a firearm,” but did not allege that he knew his felon status.
At trial the district court instructed the jury that the government must prove Green knowingly possessed the firearm but expressly told the jury the government need not prove Green knew he had a prior felony conviction or that he was breaking the law.
The jury convicted Green; the district court sentenced him to 84 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release.
After the Supreme Court’s decision in Rehaif v. United States (requiring proof the defendant knew his prohibited status), Green appealed, raising plain-error Rehaif claims based on the indictment and jury instructions.
The Fourth Circuit vacated the conviction and remanded with instructions to enter judgment dismissing the § 922(g)(1) count without prejudice, finding the omission affected Green’s substantial rights and the integrity of the proceedings.

Issue	Green's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether Rehaif requires alleging/proving the defendant knew his prohibited status as an element of § 922(g)	Indictment and jury instructions omitted the knowledge-of-status element; conviction invalid under Rehaif	Rehaif applies but any error was harmless because evidence (PSR, prior convictions, likely stipulation) would show Green knew his status	Court: Error was plain under Rehaif; omission prejudicial; conviction vacated
Whether the plain-error third-prong (substantial rights/prejudice) is satisfied	The flawed indictment failed to give notice and trial lacked evidence that Green knew his status, so prejudice occurred	Argues record would have shown knowledge and Green would have stipulated, so no prejudice	Court: Prejudice shown—errors undermined confidence in outcome (following reasoning in Medley)
Appropriate remedy for Rehaif-based plain error	Vacatur and retrial or dismissal without prejudice given pervasive defect from indictment to instructions	Opposes outright dismissal; argues errors could be cured or shown harmless on remand	Court: Vacated conviction and remanded with instructions to enter judgment dismissing the count without prejudice

Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) (holding government must prove defendant knew he had the relevant prohibited status when possessing a firearm)
Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error review framework for unpreserved errors)
Dennison v. United States, 925 F.3d 185 (4th Cir. 2019) (discussing requirements for plain-error review)
Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018) (clarifying when appellate courts should correct forfeited errors)
Henderson v. United States, 568 U.S. 266 (2013) (appellate courts apply the law in effect when rendering decision)