United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 18-41183

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Emmanuel Ravell, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:17-CR-634-1

Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Emmanuel Ravell appeals his guilty-plea conviction for possession of 

a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and 

§ 924(a)(2). He contends that under Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 11, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 18-41183 Document: 00515560690 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/11/2020
No. 18-41183

2

(2019), the factual basis was insufficient to support his guilty plea because it 

failed to establish an essential element of the offense—that he knew he had 

been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year in prison.

Because Ravell did not challenge the sufficiency of the factual basis in 

the district court, we review for plain error. See United States v. Ortiz, 927 

F.3d 868, 872 (5th Cir. 2019). To establish plain error, Ravell must show a 

forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. 

See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes such a 

showing, we have discretion to correct the error, but only if it “‘seriously 

affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” 

Id. (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 736 

(1993)).

Based on the whole record, whether there was a sufficient factual basis 

to support that Ravell knew of his status as a convicted felon is at least subject 

to reasonable dispute, and thus, there is no clear or obvious error. See id.; 

United States v. Hicks, 958 F.3d 399, 400–01 (5th Cir. 2020); United States v. 

Lavalais, 960 F.3d 180, 187–88 (5th Cir. 2020); United States v. Trejo, 610 

F.3d 308, 313 (5th Cir. 2010). In particular, the presentence report 

established, without any challenge by Ravell, that he had been convicted of 

various Texas offenses and sentenced to a five-year term of imprisonment 

and multiple two-year terms of imprisonment.

Ravell raises in his reply brief that in light of Rehaif, the indictment 

and the district court’s explanation of the elements of the offense were 

constitutionally inadequate. He also contends that “he did not receive 

Case: 18-41183 Document: 00515560690 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/11/2020
No. 18-41183

3

effective and accurate counsel as to the nature of the charges against him, nor 

could counsel adequately investigate potential theories of [his] innocence or 

potential holes in the government’s evidence.” In his Federal Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 28(j) letter, Ravell argues that a Rehaif error is 

structural. Because Ravell did not raise these arguments in his initial brief 

and had an opportunity to do so, we do not consider them. See United States 

v. Huntsberry, 956 F.3d 270, 282 n.4 (5th Cir. 2020); United States v. SanchezVillalobos, 412 F.3d 572, 577 (5th Cir. 2005), abrogated on other grounds by 

Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. 563 (2010).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 18-41183 Document: 00515560690 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/11/2020