Whether courts of appeals may rely on information not proven to the jury to affirm a conviction on plain-error review

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 rely on information that was not proven to the jury at trial to affirm the defendant’s conviction on plain-error review. 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. 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. Reginald Hollie, No. 8:17-cr-615-T-17AEP (July 19, 2018) United States Court of Appeals (11th Cir.): United States v. Reginald Hollie, No. 18-13060 (June 24, 2020) ii