Reaffirming Felon-Status Knowledge Under § 922(g) and Prohibiting Double Punishment in Bank Robbery Charges

Introduction

United States v. Leonard Gibbons is a Third Circuit decision issued on April 11, 2025, addressing two pivotal legal questions:

Whether the district court’s omission of the knowledge-of-felon-status element—later recognized in Rehaif v. United States (2019)—from the jury charge on 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) constitutes reversible plain error.
Whether convictions and concurrent sentences for both the greater offense of armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) and the lesser-included offense of bank robbery under § 2113(a) violate the Double Jeopardy Clause by imposing multiple punishments for the same conduct.

The appellant, Leonard Gibbons, had a lengthy criminal history including multiple felony convictions and lengthy incarcerations. In 2015 he committed two bank robberies, the second at gunpoint, which led to federal charges. On appeal from the Western District of Pennsylvania, Gibbons challenged his felon-in-possession conviction post-Rehaif and his dual bank-robbery convictions under § 2113.

Summary of the Judgment

The Third Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part. It held:

Felon-in-Possession (§ 922(g)) Conviction (Count Four): Although the district court’s jury instructions omitted Rehaif’s knowledge-of-felon-status requirement, Gibbons failed to show a reasonable probability that this error affected his substantial rights. His extensive felony history and lack of any evidence that he was unaware of his status defeated plain-error relief.
Lesser-Included Bank Robbery (§ 2113(a), Count Two): Conviction and sentence for § 2113(a) are vacated. Armed bank robbery under § 2113(d) is a greater offense; punishing both concurrently violates the Double Jeopardy Clause. The court remanded for resentencing on the lesser offense.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Rehaif v. United States, 588 U.S. 225 (2019) – Established that a § 922(g) conviction requires proof both that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and knew he belonged to the category of persons barred from possession.
Greer v. United States, 593 U.S. 503 (2021) – Clarified plain-error review for Rehaif errors and created a rebuttable presumption that a defendant’s felony status satisfies the knowledge-of-status element.
Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997) – Permitted stipulations to prior convictions to avoid unfair prejudice, relevant here because Gibbons entered an “Old Chief stipulation” to acknowledge his felony status.
United States v. Adams, 36 F.4th 137 (3d Cir. 2022) – Applied Greer’s presumption in the Third Circuit, holding that a defendant must present evidence of ignorance of felon status to overcome plain-error review.
United States v. Cesare, 581 F.3d 206 (3d Cir. 2009) and United States v. Beckett, 208 F.3d 140 (3d Cir. 2000) – Held that § 2113(a) bank robbery is a lesser-included offense of § 2113(d) armed bank robbery and that concurrent sentences on both offend double jeopardy.

Legal Reasoning

1. Plain-Error Review of Rehaif Error: Because Gibbons failed to object at trial, the Third Circuit applied the three-prong plain-error test (error, plainness, substantial rights). Rehaif error (omitting the knowledge-of-status element) was “plain.” To satisfy the “substantial rights” prong, Gibbons needed a reasonable probability that the jury would have reached a different verdict with correct instructions. Under Greer and Adams, the court may consider the entire record. Gibbons’s extensive felony record and Old Chief stipulation overwhelmingly support that he knew he was a felon. He offered no evidence of actual ignorance, so he could not show prejudice.

2. Double Jeopardy and Lesser-Included Offenses: Under longstanding Third Circuit precedent, punishing both § 2113(a) and § 2113(d) for the same bank robbery constitutes impermissible double punishment. The court vacated the § 2113(a) conviction and remanded for resentencing on that count alone, leaving the armed robbery (§ 2113(d)) sentence intact.

Impact

This decision reinforces several important principles:

Post-Rehaif § 922(g) convictions will rarely be overturned on plain-error grounds absent credible evidence that the defendant did not know his felon status.
Courts should consistently apply Greer’s presumption when evaluating knowledge-of-status arguments and permit defendants to introduce contrary evidence early in the process.
Sentencing judges must avoid imposing concurrent punishments for greater and lesser-included federal offenses, or risk vacatur under the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Plain-Error Review: A four-step test used by appellate courts to evaluate unpreserved errors: (1) Was there an error? (2) Was it “plain” (clear under existing law)? (3) Did it affect the defendant’s substantial rights (i.e., was there a reasonable probability of a different outcome)? (4) Would correcting the error seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings?
Rehaif Error: Failure to instruct the jury that, to convict under § 922(g), the government must prove not only that the defendant knowingly possessed a firearm but also that he knew he was a convicted felon.
Old Chief Stipulation: An agreement by the defendant to concede a prior conviction to avoid prejudicial evidence about the details of that conviction, as allowed by Old Chief v. United States.
Lesser-Included Offense: A crime whose elements are entirely contained within a greater offense. Federal bank robbery (§ 2113(a)) is a lesser-included offense of armed bank robbery (§ 2113(d)).
Double Jeopardy Clause: The Fifth Amendment protection against multiple punishments for the same offense. Punishing both a greater offense and its lesser-included counterpart violates this clause.

Conclusion

United States v. Gibbons affirms the Third Circuit’s commitment to the Rehaif rule and strict double jeopardy limits. By applying Greer’s presumption of knowledge-of-status and requiring defendants to present evidence to the contrary, the decision underscores that plain-error relief for Rehaif violations is rare. Simultaneously, it maintains the prohibition against punishing greater and lesser-included federal offenses separately. This ruling will guide district courts and counsel in charging, instructing, and sentencing defendants in firearms and bank robbery cases, ensuring a balance between robust prosecutorial requirements and constitutional protections.