Whether courts of appeals may affirm a defendant's conviction by relying on facts about the defendant's prior convictions that were not proven to the jury at trial

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether, in cases charged and tried to a jury before this Court decided Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), courts of appeals may affirm a defendant’s conviction by relying on facts about the defendant’s prior convictions that were not proven to the jury at trial— an issue that divides the circuits. 2. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) exceeds Congress’s Commerce Clause power facially and as applied to the local possession of a firearm, where the only connection to interstate commerce occurred before the defendant possessed the firearm—here, when the firearm crossed state lines before Petitioner was even born. 3. Whether a federal court may increase a defendant’s sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) by relying on its own finding about non-elemental facts, taken from the charging documents alone, to conclude a defendant’s prior offenses were “committed on occasions different from one another.” 4. Whether the ACCA’s definition of a “serious drug offense” requires knowledge of the substance’s illicit nature, an issue left undecided in Shular v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 779, 787 n.3 (2020). i PROCEEDINGS IN FEDERAL TRIAL AND APPELLATE COURTS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THIS CASE United States District Court (M.D. Fla.): United States v. Sean Justin Owens, No. 3:18-cr-30-J-25PDB (Mar. 1, 2019) United States Court of Appeals (11th Cir.): United States v. Sean Justin Owens, No. 19-10822 (Apr. 7, 2020) ii