Whether the courts of appeals may consider the entire record, including a presentence report, in determining if a defendant's substantial rights were affected by the failure to prove the defendant knew his relevant status

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In Rehaif v. United States, this Court held that 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 924(a)(2) require the government to prove that “the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and also that he knew he had the relevant status when he possessed it.” 139 S. Ct. 2191, 2194 (2019). One “relevant status” is that the defendant have a prior conviction for “a crime punishable by imprisonment for : a term exceeding one year.” 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The circuits are expressly split in cases that were tried to a jury and pending on direct appeal when this Court decided Rehaif. The questions presented by this petition are: 1. Whether, in determining if a defendant’s substantial rights were affected by the failure of the indictment to charge, and the government to prove to the jury, that the defendant knew his relevant status, the courts of appeals may consider the “entire” record, including a presentence report containing facts about a defendant’s prior convictions that were not admitted or offered to be admitted at trial. ; 2. Whether, even if the courts of appeals may consider the entire record, a court of appeals | errs by considering only certain non-trial evidence, and not considering evidence on the record tending to show that the defendant lacks the requisite knowledge of his status. i PROCEEDINGS IN FEDERAL TRIAL AND APPELLATE COURTS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THIS CASE United States Supreme Court: United States v. Dan Reed, No. 18-7490 (June 28, 2019) (granting certiorari, vacating judgment, and remanding for further proceedings in light of Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019)). United States Court of Appeals (11th Cir.): United States v. Dan Reed, No. 17-12699 752 F. App’x 851 (Oct. 19, 2018) (original opinion) 941 F.3d 1018 (Oct. 28, 2019) (opinion on remand) Order (Jan. 8, 2020) (rehearing and rehearing en banc denial) United States District Court (M.D. Fla.): United States v. Dan Reed, No. 6:15-cr-162-Orl-3 1KRS (June 6, 2017) ii