neochart v2 research

cases/18usc922/f4th-143-169-us-v-thompson.case

Source: cases/18usc922/f4th-143-169-us-v-thompson.case

Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f4th/volume_143/169/index.html

Verbatim annotated passages

We find that the district court met its obligations under Rule 11 and sufficiently informed Thompson of the elements of his crime.

Exact source text

casedsl 1.2

# author: Flash3 (gemini-3.8-flash-high)
# triaged-by: Fable (2026-11-10)
case /f4th/143/169
  name    United States v. Thompson
  cite    143 F.4th 169 (2025)
  court   Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
  date    2025-07-10
  url     catalog/cases/f4th/volume_143/169/index.html
  source  ir/caselaw/f4th_143.jsonl sha1=19adc3141793cb3b182c79c26be7efda484bb492 chars=45592

opinion op : panel by Nardini @3022..45592 controlling
party p1 : Kenneth Thompson
count c1 : 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)

law 18usc922
  role    rule-announced
  posture criminal appeal after guilty plea to § 922(g)(1) with appeal waiver; appeal mainly challenges special conditions of supervised release; pro se Rule 11 (Rehaif) challenge to the plea rejected on plain-error review and remaining challenges held barred by the waiver; affirmed
  result  claimant-won

element knowledge-status : not-reached
  scope   procedural
  party   p1
  count   c1
  route   _procedural
  pattern plea colloquy that recited the Rehaif knowledge-of-status element; plea held knowing, so the appeal waiver is enforced
  rule @40794..41194 [quoted] | The magistrate judge explicitly stated to Thompson at his plea hearing that in addition to proving that he “knowingly possessed the firearm and ammunition as charged in the indictment,” “the government would [also] have to prove that [Thompson was] convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year and that [he] knew [he] had been convicted of such a crime.”
  held @40663..40793 | We find that the district court met its obligations under Rule 11 and sufficiently informed Thompson of the elements of his crime.
  gloss   The court decides only that the defendant was TOLD of the knowledge-of-status element (Rule 11(b)(1)(G)), not that he knew his status; the conviction rests on the guilty plea. The opinion approves the magistrate judge's statement of the element.