Court Opinion

ID: 9798526
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 05:08:28.48823+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:12.797474
License: Public Domain

DAVIS, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent.
First, substantially for the reasons set forth in the dissenting opinion of Judge Rogers in United States v. Burwell, 690 F.3d 500, 519-27 (D.C.Cir.2012)(en *55banc)(Rogers, J., dissenting), I would find that there is a mens rea component to the statutory element of the firearm’s characteristic as a machine gun. See also id. at 543-51 (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting).
Second, the majority addresses one prong of plain error review: whether the error here was “clear” or “obvious.” Lest there be any doubt, however, Supreme Court precedent plainly informs us that “the omission of an element is an error.” Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 15,119 S.Ct. 1827, 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999). Moreover, this case involves an error affecting Trejo’s substantial rights and the integrity of judicial proceedings. Accordingly, I would notice the error and conclude that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all of the elements of the indictment count charging a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(l)(B)(ii) and would therefore reverse and remand for entry of a judgment of acquittal on that count.