[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

______________________________ No. 16

- 17119 Non

- Argument Calendar

______________________________ D.C. Docket No. 2:15

- cr - 00125

- SPC

- CM

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL LEVON JACKSON, Defendant

- Appellant.

___________________ Appeal from the United States District Court For the Middle District of Florida

___________________

( December 23, 2020 ) USCA11 Case: 16-17119 Date Filed: 12/23/2020 Page: 1 of 52 Before BRANCH, FAY, and EDMONDSON,

PER CURIAM:

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
In this appeal, we affirmed Michael Jackson’s conviction and 120

- month sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). See United States v. Jackson , 750 F. App’x 811 (11th Cir. 2018). The Supreme Court has now granted certiorari , vacated our decision, and remanded the

case to us for additional consideration in the light of its decision in Rehaif v. United States , 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019). We ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing the effect of Rehaif on Jackson’s conviction. After additional review, we affirm. On remand , Jackson contends his indictment was defective because the indictment failed to allege that Jackson knew he was a convicted felon

-- an essential element of a section 922(g) offense as recognized by the Supreme Court

USCA11 Case: 16-17119 Date Filed: 12/23/2020 Page: 2 of 53 in Rehaif

. See Rehaif , 139 S. Ct. at 2200. Jackson also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence proving that he knew of his convicted

- felon status. * Because Jackson never raised these arguments in the district court, we review the issues only for plain err or. See United States v. Reed , 941 F.3d 1018, 1020 (11th Cir. 2019) (reviewing a newly

- available Rehaif argument for plain error). Under the plain

- error standard, a defendant “must prove that an error occurred that was both plain and that affected his su bstantial rights.” Id . at 1021. “If he does so, we may, in our discretion, correct the plain error if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id

. (quotations and alteration omitted). That the omission of the knowledge

- of

- status element in Jackson’s indictment and at trial constituted error

-- and that the error was made plain by Rehaif

-- is undisputed. Thus, we address only whether Jackson has satisfied his burden of showing that the error affected his substantial rights. We conclude that he has not.

* Jackson also contends that the indictment failed to charge

-- and that the government failed to prove -- that he knew he was prohibited from possessing firearms because of his convicted

- felon status. In Rehaif , the Supreme Court concluded that to obtain a conviction under section 922(g), the government must prove that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and that he knew of his pertinent status. 139 S. Ct. at 2194, 2200. N othing in the Rehaif decision requires the showing that the defendant also kne w that his status barred him from possessing a firearm ; so , Jackson can demonstrate no plain error on this issue.

USCA11 Case: 16-17119 Date Filed: 12/23/2020 Page: 3 of 54 To show that a plain error affected substantial rights, a defendant “must show a reasonable probability that, but for the error , the outcome of the proceeding would have been different

. ” Molina

- Martinez v. United States , 136 S. Ct. 1338, 1343 (2016) (quotations omitted) . We may consider the entire record in determining whether an error affected a defendant’s substantial rights. Reed , 941 F.3d at 1021. Here, t he record evidences suffi ciently that Jackson knew of his status as a convicted felon when he possessed the charged firearms. Prior to trial, Jackson stipulated that

-- at the time of the charged offenses

-- he “had previously been convicted in a court of a crime punishable by im prisonment for a term in excess of one year, that is, a felony criminal offense.” Cf. Reed , 941 F.3d at 1022 ( concluding that a jury could have inferred that the defendant knew he was a felon based in part on his pre

- trial stipulation). T he undisputed fa cts in the Presentence Investigation Report also show that Jackson had four prior felony convictions incurred on three separate dates

-- “powerful evidence” that Jackson knew he was a felon. See United States v. Innocent , 977 F.3d 1077, 1082 (11th Cir. 2020) (concluding that defendant failed to show that a Rehaif error affected his substantial rights when he had four prior felony convictions, noting that “[m]ost people convicted of a felony know that they are felons” and that “someone who

USCA11 Case: 16-17119 Date Filed: 12/23/2020 Page: 4 of 55 has been convicted of felonies repeatedly is especially likely to know he is a felon.”). We also point out that never does Jackson claim that he was really unaware he was a convicted felon when he possessed the charged firearms.
On th is record, Jackson cannot demonstrate a reasonable probability that

-- but for the Rehaif error -- the outcome of the proceeding wou l d have been different. Nor can Jackson show that the error affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of his t rial.
AFFIRMED. USCA11 Case: 16-17119 Date Filed: 12/23/2020 Page: 5 of 5