United States v. Morales: Knowledge of § 5822 Non-Compliance and Domestic Manufacture Not Required for NFA “Making” Offense on Plain-Error Review

I. Introduction

In United States v. Morales, No. 23-40623 (5th Cir. June 25, 2025), the Fifth Circuit confronted a challenge to a guilty plea arising from a short-barreled, privately manufactured “ghost gun.” Tomas Gerardo Morales, a felon and drug user, pled guilty to one count of possessing a firearm “made” in violation of the National Firearms Act (NFA), 26 U.S.C. §§ 5822, 5861(c), 5871. After receiving a within-Guidelines sentence of 90 months, Morales—despite an appeal waiver—argued for the first time on appeal that the district court lacked an adequate factual basis because the record did not show (1) that the firearm was manufactured without the Attorney General’s approval and tax payment required by § 5822; (2) that Morales knew of the § 5822 violation; or (3) that the firearm was manufactured in the United States. The panel, applying plain-error review, affirmed.

II. Summary of the Judgment

1. No Clear or Obvious Error on § 5822 Violation. Circumstantial facts—privately made weapon, no serial number or industry markings, purchased for cash “on the street”—reasonably supported the inference of non-compliance with § 5822. Any contrary argument remains “subject to reasonable dispute,” defeating plain error.
2. Mens Rea Limited to Weapon Characteristics. Relying on Staples v. United States and Freed, the court held that § 5861(c) does not plainly require proof that the defendant knew about § 5822 procedural non-compliance; knowledge of the features (short barrel, etc.) suffices.
3. Domestic Manufacture Not an Element. Because the current NFA no longer contains the older “made in the United States” language and Fifth Circuit precedent is unsettled, failure to prove domestic manufacture was not plainly erroneous.
4. Concurrence – No Prejudice or Miscarriage of Justice. Judge Engelhardt emphasized prongs three and four of the plain-error test: Morales obtained a favorable plea (three counts dismissed) and never indicated willingness to proceed to trial; thus any assumed error neither affected substantial rights nor impugned the integrity of the proceedings.

III. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) – Framework for counsel’s motion to withdraw; the panel flagged non-frivolous issues notwithstanding counsel’s Anders brief.
Rule 11(b)(3), Fed. R. Crim. P. – Requires factual basis before accepting a guilty plea; core of Morales’s complaint.
United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55 (2002) – Establishes that unpreserved Rule 11 errors are reviewed for plain error.
Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994) & United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971) – Supreme Court holdings that the NFA does not require knowledge of registration status; used to analogize the “making” offense.
United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537 (5th Cir. 2012) – Clarifies that disputed inferences cannot constitute plain error.
United States v. Guzman, 739 F.3d 241 (5th Cir. 2014) – No plain error when defendant’s argument requires extension of precedent.
United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571 (5th Cir. 2023) – Unsettled circuit law precludes finding of plain error.
Unpublished: United States v. Aikens, 2024 WL 4973302 (5th Cir. 2024) – Indicates domestic manufacture is not an element; cited to show trend.

B. Court’s Legal Reasoning

Plain-Error Framework. The panel meticulously applied the four-part test (Puckett): error, clarity, effect on substantial rights, and effect on judicial reputation.
Element-by-Element Inquiry. It parsed § 5861(c) (“make” violation) and § 5822 (tax and approval requirements). Because neither statute contains an explicit knowledge requirement and Supreme Court analogues omit it, the panel deemed any contrary view non-plain.
Circumstantial Evidence Suffices. The record—plea colloquy, presentence report, and admissions—allowed a “fairly drawn inference” that the weapon was illegally made, satisfying Rule 11(b)(3).
Domestic Manufacture Question Left Open. By noting statutory amendments and absence of binding authority, the court avoided creating new substantive law, but held that unsettled law cannot yield “clear or obvious error.”

C. Potential Impact

1. NFA Litigation. The decision signals that, in the Fifth Circuit, defendants cannot rely on technical uncertainties in § 5822 to unwind plea agreements under plain-error review.
2. “Ghost Guns” & 3-D Printed Firearms. As privately manufactured weapons proliferate, Morales strengthens the government’s hand by limiting the factual predicates a court must recite when accepting pleas.
3. Plea-Bargaining Dynamics. The concurrence warns defendants: absent explicit record evidence of willingness to stand trial, appellate attacks on pleas are unlikely to succeed where the plea dismissed other counts.
4. Clarifying Mens Rea. While not precedential (unpublished), the opinion adds persuasive weight to the view that knowledge of procedural NFA violations is unnecessary—potentially influencing future published panels or sister circuits.

IV. Complex Concepts Simplified

National Firearms Act (NFA). A 1934 statute heavily regulating certain weapons (machine guns, silencers, short-barreled rifles). Violations often turn on technical features like barrel length and registration status.
Short-Barreled Rifle. Under 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a)(3), a rifle with a barrel under 16 inches. Possession without compliance triggers severe penalties.
§ 5822 “Making” Requirement. Anyone who wants to make an NFA firearm must: (a) apply to ATF, (b) pay a $200 tax, and (c) receive approval before construction. Failure results in violation of § 5861(c).
Plain-Error Review. An appellate standard applied when trial objections were not preserved. The error must be (1) real, (2) obvious, (3) affect substantial rights, and (4) seriously affect judicial integrity.
Anders Brief. When appellate counsel believes no non-frivolous issues exist, he files an Anders brief; the court must still independently review the record.

V. Conclusion

United States v. Morales adds an important gloss to NFA jurisprudence in the Fifth Circuit. It underscores that on plain-error review:
(1) circumstantial evidence can uphold a plea for a § 5861(c) offense;
(2) the government need not prove the defendant’s knowledge of § 5822 non-compliance; and
(3) absent settled precedent, failure to show domestic manufacture is not plainly erroneous.

While unpublished, the opinion shapes the strategic landscape for defendants facing “ghost-gun” prosecutions and reinforces the value—and finality—of well-negotiated plea agreements. Future panels may convert these insights into binding precedent, but for now, Morales serves as a practical roadmap for litigators navigating NFA “making” charges and Rule 11 challenges.