Whether an appellate court may consider information outside the trial record to determine if a Rehaif error affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the trial proceedings

Questions Presented In Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), this Court identified the mens rea necessary for the status element under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 924(a)(2), expanding the government’s burden of proof for conviction and narrowing the class of persons susceptible to criminal liability. Similar to the petitioner in Greer v. United States, No. 19-8709, cert. granted, 2021 WL 77241 (U.S. Jan. 8, 2021), Moore was convicted by a jury prior to Rehaif for possessing a firearm and a bullet without the government proving that, at the time of her alleged possession, she knew her “status as a person barred from possessing a firearm” or ammunition. 139 S. Ct. at 2200. The questions presented are: I. When applying plain error review based on an intervening United States Supreme Court decision, may an appellate court consider information outside the trial record to determine if the error affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the trial proceedings? I. Does an indictment that omits the defendant’s knowledge-of-status element fail to allege a federal offense? i List of Proceedings United States Court of Appeals (9th Cir.): 1.