United States v. Michell

Summarized by:

  • Court: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Archives
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
  • Date Filed: 04-14-2023
  • Case #: No. 19-10059
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Wardlaw, C.J. for the Court, joined by Graber, C.J.; Baker, J. concurred in part and dissented in part
  • Full Text Opinion

In order to find that a plain error was made by the trial court, Greer v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 2090, 2096-97 (2021) requires that there be (1) an error that is (2) plain and that (3) affects substantial rights. There must be a reasonable probability that, but for the error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different.

Appellant was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm as a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Appellant assigns plain error, arguing that because the Supreme Court subsequently held that the government “must prove[...]that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm,” the jury should have been instructed to determine whether Appellant knew that he was barred. Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019).

The Court turned to Greer v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 2090, 2096-97 (2021) for a plain error relief standard, which requires that there be (1) an error that is (2) plain and that (3) affects substantial rights. There must be a “reasonable probability that, but for the error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different.” Id. 

The Court determined that Appellant did not show that the error affected his substantial rights because there was no reasonable probability that a jury would find Appellant did not know of his status as a convicted felon. Appellant had pled guilty or been convicted of multiple felonies with a presumptive sentence of at least one year in prison. 

AFFIRMED.

Advanced Search


Back to Top