Should the Court of Appeals have looked beyond the trial record to Frye's presentence investigation report to decide that there was no plain error that seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Before this Court handed down Rehaif v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 2191 (2019), Quincey Frye was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition.! At his jury trial Frye stipulated to the fact that he’d previously been convicted of a crime punishable by in excess of a year’s imprisonment. And, Frye did not object when the District Court instructed the jurors that they need not find that Frye knew of his felon “status” when he possessed the firearm in order to convict him. On appeal and under a plain error standard of review, Frye argued that the evidence of his mens rea vis-a-vis his felon status was insufficient, and that the jury was improperly instructed that it needn’t consider Frye’s mens rea vis-a-vis his felon status. The Second Circuit, relying on information outside of the trial record, rejected Frye’s arguments and affirmed his conviction. The question presented for review is: Should the Court of Appeals have looked beyond the trial record to In violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). i Frye’s presentence investigation report to decide that there was no plain error that seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings? il