Whether the district court committed plain error in failing to instruct the jury that the evidence must establish both that petitioner Emmanuel Feaster 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 presented in this case 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 petitioner Emmanuel Feaster 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. In conflict with the decision below, the Fourth Circuit in United States v. Medley, 972 F.3d 399 (4th Cir.), reh’g en banc granted, 828 Fed. Appx. 923 (Mem) (2020), and the Third Circuit in United States v. Nasir, 982 F.3d 144 (4" Cir. 2020) (en banc), reversed for plain error based on a failure to instruct the jury per Rehaif. 2. Whether, when applying plain-error review based upon an intervening United States Supreme Court decision, a circuit court of appeals may review matters outside the trial record to determine whether the error affected a defendant’s substantial rights or impacted the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the trial? i This Court has granted certiorari on this issue in the pending case of Greer v. United States, No. 19-8709.