In the Interest of: D.E.M., of: NLW, Mother

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that Rehaif error is not structural and requiring a defendant challenging his guilty plea to satisfy the stringent plain-error requirements and “show a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea”
• noting that a defendant who had six felony convictions and had served four years in prison “[could not] credibly claim he was unaware that he was a felon”
• concluding that the defendant could not show a reasonable probability that, if he had been advised of the government’s need to prove knowledge of his prohibited status, he would not have pleaded guilty because he had “served a total of four years in prison for six felony offenses”
• concluding that the defendant could not show a reasonable probability that, if he had been advised of the government’s need to prove knowledge of his prohibited status, he would not have pleaded guilty because he had “served a total of four years in prison for six felony offenses”
• rejecting the defendant’s third-prong, reasonable-probability argument where the defendant “was convicted of six felonies . . . . [and] served a total of four years in prison for six felony offenses.” (citation omitted)
• ‘We recognize [that our] conclusion conflicts with the Fourth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Gary, 954 F.3d 194 (4th Cir. 2020

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).