Whether the district court committed plain error in failing to instruct the jury that the evidence must establish both that appellant Anthony Smith knew he possessed a firearm and ammunition and that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm and ammunition

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(g)(1), “[i]t shall be unlawful” for certain individuals to possess firearms that have traveled in interstate commerce. The provision lists nine categories of persons subject to the prohibition, including those previously convicted of a crime punishable by a term exceeding one year. A separate provision in 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) adds that anyone who “knowingly violates” the first provision shall be fined or imprisoned for up to 10 years. In Rehaifv. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), this Court held that in a prosecution under § 922(g) and § 924(a)(2), the government must prove both that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm. The issues relating to Sections 922 and 924 are: 1. Whether the district court committed plain error in failing to instruct the jury that the evidence must establish both that appellant Anthony Smith knew he possessed a firearm and ammunition and that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm and ammunition. 2. Whether the convictions must be reversed and the indictment dismissed because the indictment failed to charge a critical element of an offense under Section 922(g)(1), i.e., that Smith subjectively knew he was prohibited from possessing a firearm. 3. Whether the combination of the above errors affected petitioner’s substantial rights and the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. In conflict with the decision below, the Fourth Circuit in United States v. Medley, No. 184789 (4th Cir. August 21, 2020), held that the combination of the above errors required a reversal for plain error. i