Whether the appellate court may assume the indictment alleges a federal offense and consider material outside the trial record to adjudicate the defendant's mens rea under plain error's fourth prong

Questions Presented For Review This Court previously granted Christopher Johnson’s petition for certiorari, remanding to the Ninth Circuit for further consideration under Rehaif as his grand jury indictment did not allege, and his guilty plea did not admit, that he belonged to the relevant category of persons prohibited from possessing a firearm at the time of possession under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and § 924(a)(2). On remand, the Ninth Circuit denied relief under the fourth prong of plain error. As to the Rehaifdeficient indictment, the court assumed the indictment alleged a federal offense and adjudicated Johnson’s mens rea in the first instance by reviewing state court documents submitted on appeal to find the Rehaif error did not endanger plain error’s fourth prong. As to Johnson’s Rehaif-deficient guilty plea, the court did not believe a guilty plea that violates due process satisfies the fourth prong. The questions presented are: IL When an indictment fails to allege an essential mens rea element, may the appellate court assume the indictment still alleges a federal offense and consider material outside the trial record to adjudicate the defendant’s mens rea in the first instance under plain error’s fourth prong? I. Does an unconstitutional guilty plea that violates due process satisfy the fourth prong of plain error by endangering the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings? 1