Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2025-07-10
18usc922: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)
Case and law context
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; claim:
Uncertainty
None recorded
Misfit
None recorded
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 12
| Case | One applicable prohibited category | Section 925(a)(1) government-use firearm or ammunition exception | Actual or constructive possession | Firearm or ammunition under section 921 | Possession in or affecting commerce | Knowledge of possessing the firearm or ammunition |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Thompson — 143 F.4th 169 (2025) · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2025 (18usc922: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 7–12 of 12
| Case | Knowledge of the relevant disqualifying status | Second Amendment limit on the unlawful-user theory applied to Hemani | Ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce | Knowing shipping, transportation or receipt | Receipt of the prohibited object | Received object previously shipped or transported across borders |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Thompson — 143 F.4th 169 (2025) · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2025 (18usc922: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: rule-announced/procedural | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Thompson — 143 F.4th 169 (2025) · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2025 — not reached (18usc922: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Knowledge of the relevant disqualifying status | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / procedural party: Kenneth Thompson; count: 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); subject: party=Kenneth Thompson; count=18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) 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. | plea colloquy that recited the Rehaif knowledge-of-status element; plea held knowing, so the appeal waiver is enforced | 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.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_143.jsonl#/f4th/143/169; Unicode character offsets [40794:41194] (end exclusive); SHA-256 eae341592a474d3e3934da53386f5dc41d81c8bea633cb72b7053894e83445bb.We find that the district court met its obligations under Rule 11 and sufficiently informed Thompson of the elements of his crime.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_143.jsonl#/f4th/143/169; Unicode character offsets [40663:40793] (end exclusive); SHA-256 eae341592a474d3e3934da53386f5dc41d81c8bea633cb72b7053894e83445bb. |
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
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.”
United States v. Thompson — 143 F.4th 169 (2025) · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2025 (18usc922: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md))
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.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_143.jsonl#/f4th/143/169; Unicode character offsets [40794:41194] (end exclusive); SHA-256 eae341592a474d3e3934da53386f5dc41d81c8bea633cb72b7053894e83445bb.Rehaif expressly reserved the precise proof needed for statuses other than the one before it; do not infer that awareness of every legal consequence or the federal firearms ban is required. Status knowledge must coincide with the relevant conduct.