This case presents two questions for review.

1. In Rehaif v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 2191 (2019), this Court held in a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), the government must prove that the defendant knew his legal status, and thus that a mistake of collateral law is a defense. But this Court left open the possibility that different subdivisions of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) might have different knowledge requirements. Some circuits have held that, as to all subdivisions, Rehaif requires knowledge of collateral law. Other circuits, including the Ninth Circuit panel below, have held that when applied to other subdivisions, Rehaif may be satisfied by a showing that defendant was aware of the facts underlying his status.

The first question presented is whether other subdivisions of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) require knowledge of collateral law.

2. In Greer v. United States, 141 S.Ct. 2090 (2021), this Court stated that a defendant may satisfy his burden of demonstrating plain error in an omitted-element case by making an argument or representation on appeal regarding the omitted element. Petitioner in this case requested an opportunity to make such a showing, but his request was ignored by the Ninth Circuit panel, which relied solely on trial evidence in analyzing plain error.

The second question presented is whether appellate courts must give a defendant an opportunity to make an evidentiary proffer to satisfy his burden of demonstrating plain error.

Whether other subdivisions of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) require knowledge of collateral law