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

Questions Presented One and Two 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). There is a direct split in the Circuits in cases that were tried to a jury and were pending on direct appeal when this Court decided Rehaif: The first two questions presented by this petition are: First, whether in determining if the 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 the defendant’s prior convictions that were not admitted or offered to be admitted at trial? i Second, 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, all of which violated due process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment ? Three and Four Whether in affirming Bernard Moore’s conviction and sentence, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, and sanctions such a departure by the district court, as to call for the exercise of this Court’s supervisory powers in that it violates every notion of reasonableness, fairness, due process, and common sense, third, to affirm where the Eleventh Circuit violated Moore’s right to due process under the Fifth Amendment by failing to adhere to its own precedent, and precedent of this Court concerning his entitlement to relief while his case was pending on direct review to a change of law? And fourth, to affirm where there was a warrantless search in violation of the Fourth Amendment? ii