Whether Mr. Hardaway made a sufficient showing that if he had been properly advised, there is a reasonable probability that he would not have pleaded guilty to the felon in possession charge

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Mr. Hardaway pleaded guilty to a felon in possession charge. The district court arraigned Mr. Hardaway after this Court’s decision in Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), but Mr. Hardaway did not object to the district court’s failure to advise him that the elements of the felon in possession offense included that he knew he had been convicted of a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year. Did Mr. Hardaway make a sufficient showing that if had been properly advised, there is a reasonable probability that he would not have pleaded guilty to the felon in possession charge? I. The district court sentenced Mr. Hardaway as a career offender. On appeal, the Government conceded that he is not a career offender. The Fourth Circuit nevertheless affirmed, holding that sentencing Mr. Hardaway as a career offender was harmless error. Can the district court’s error in sentencing Mr. Hardaway be harmless when the district court relied on the same reasons to justify an erroneous career offender sentence of 151 months and what it called an “alternative variance” sentence 114 months more than the top of the correct Guidelines range? 1