Reaffirmation of the Rehaif Standard: Knowledge of Felony Status Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) in United States v. Berris

Introduction

United States v. Berris, 10th Cir. No. 24-8065 (May 12, 2025), presents the Tenth Circuit’s reaffirmation of the mens rea requirement for convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Frank Ray Berris—proceeding pro se—was stopped by a Wyoming trooper, found in possession of three loaded firearms, and subsequently convicted of unlawful firearm possession after felony convictions. On appeal, he challenged evidentiary exclusions, asserted lack of knowledge that his status barred him from firearm possession, and advanced “sovereign citizen” defenses. The court affirmed, emphasizing that under Rehaif v. United States, 588 U.S. 225 (2019), the government need only prove the defendant knew of his disqualifying status (past felony conviction), not that he knew the law forbade his firearm possession.

Summary of the Judgment

The Tenth Circuit unanimously affirmed the district court’s judgment. Key holdings:

The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding pro se defendant’s evidence relating to a state‐court acquittal and “sovereign citizen” theory as irrelevant or confusing.
Under Rehaif, the government satisfied § 922(g)(1) by proving Berris knew he had prior felony convictions; no proof of his knowledge that federal law prohibited his possession was required.
Sovereign‐citizen arguments and demands for an “injured party” are meritless and do not negate federal jurisdiction.

The conviction and the within‐Guidelines 90-month sentence were affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Rehaif v. United States, 588 U.S. 225 (2019) – Held that § 922(g) prosecutions require proof the defendant knew his status as a prohibited person, not knowledge that the law made possession unlawful.
Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184 (1998) – Distinguished knowledge of fact from knowledge of law in criminal mens rea analysis.
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) – Requires district courts to ensure pro se defendants knowingly and intelligently waive counsel.
United States v. Hald, 8 F.4th 932 (10th Cir. 2021) – Instructs liberal construction of pro se pleadings while not serving as counsel for the defendant.
United States v. Joseph, 108 F.4th 1273 (10th Cir. 2024) and Griffin, 389 F.3d 1100 (10th Cir. 2004) – Set the abuse‐of‐discretion standard for evidentiary rulings.
United States v. Patterson, 713 F.3d 1237 (10th Cir. 2013) – Prohibits wholesale incorporation of district court filings to satisfy appellate briefing requirements.
United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753 (7th Cir. 2011) – Rejects “sovereign citizen” claims as jurisdictionally irrelevant.

Legal Reasoning

1. Evidentiary Rulings. The court applied an abuse‐of‐discretion standard and held that evidence of Berris’s state‐court acquittal and sovereign‐citizen theories was irrelevant to the federal § 922(g)(1) elements—namely, whether defendant had prior felony convictions and possessed firearms. Allowing that evidence risked confusing the jury.

2. Mens Rea Under § 922(g)(1). Citing Rehaif, the panel emphasized the government must prove the defendant knew the facts establishing his status (past felony), not that he knew federal law forbade the possession. Berris had three prior firearm‐possession convictions, admitted he never sought pardon or expungement, and even failed a 2019 background check due to his record. These facts sufficed to show he understood his status.

3. Pro Se Limits. The court reiterated it cannot craft arguments for a pro se appellant; issues not briefed with authority and record citations are waived.

Impact

Reinforces the Rehaif mens rea threshold, ensuring prosecutions under § 922(g)(1) focus on knowledge of status rather than arcane legal prohibitions.
Discourages sovereign‐citizen defenses and collateral attacks on prior convictions through irrelevant evidence.
Warns pro se litigants that liberal pleading allowances do not extend to appellate advocacy or record‐less assertions.
Guides trial courts on admissibility of prior‐state‐court proceedings and the proper scope of motions in limine in firearm cases.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Mens Rea: The mental state or “guilty mind” required for a crime. Under § 922(g)(1), it is satisfied if the defendant knew he had a felony conviction, not that he knew the law made his possession illegal.
Actus Reus: The physical act of the crime—in this case, possessing a firearm while having a prior felony conviction.
Abuse of Discretion: A deferential appellate standard. A trial court ruling stands unless it was arbitrary, whimsical, or exceeded legal bounds.
Hearsay: An out‐of‐court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Only admissible if it falls under an exception or exclusion.

Conclusion

United States v. Berris underscores the Tenth Circuit’s commitment to the Rehaif framework: proof of a defendant’s knowledge of disqualifying status is sufficient for § 922(g)(1) convictions. The decision clarifies that appeals by pro se defendants must be supported by authority and record citations, that sovereign‐citizen and collateral‐attack arguments are inadmissible, and that trial courts have broad discretion in evidence rulings. Going forward, this precedent will guide practitioners in framing mens rea arguments in firearm prosecutions and in managing pro se litigants’ evidentiary requests.