Is an error 'plain' within the meaning of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) only if controlling precedent has recognized the exact same error in precisely the same context?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW In Henderson v. United States, this Court held that “it is enough that an error be plain at the time of appellate consideration” to meet the second prong of the plain error standard, even if the law was unsettled at the time of trial. 568 U.S. 266, 279 (2018) (cleaned up). While Petitioner’s direct appeal was pending, this Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, which held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home; adopted a methodological framework for testing the constitutionality of a statute under the Second Amendment; and invalidated a New York licensing statute. 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2122, 2127, 2156 (2022). Applying Bruen’s test, Petitioner argued that his crime of conviction—receipt of a firearm while under indictment—was facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. But the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Petitioner failed to meet the “plainness” standard “because there is no binding precedent holding § 922(n) unconstitutional.” The question presented is: Is an error “plain” within the meaning of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) only if controlling precedent has recognized the exact same error in precisely the same context? ii No. In the Supreme Court of the United States SAMUEL JESUS AVILA, PETITIONER, V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Petitioner Samuel Jesus Avila asks that a writ of certiorari issue to review the opinion and judgment entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on December 21, 2023.