USA v. CANDELARIO, et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	)
)
)
v. 	) 2:21-cr-00015-JDL
)
JASON CANDELARIO, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT FIVE OF THE
SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT
Defendant Jason Candelario is charged in the Superseding Indictment (ECF
No. 115) with a total of five counts, including one count of possession by a prohibited
person in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e) (West 2021) (Count Five).
Candelario has filed a Motion to Dismiss Count Five on the ground that it fails to
charge an essential element of the offense (ECF No. 126). For the reasons that follow,
I deny the motion.
Count Five of the Superseding Indictment alleges that Candelario, “knowing
he had previously been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term
exceeding one year, . . . knowingly possessed a firearm . . . and ammunition.” (ECF
No. 115 at 3). Candelario argues that this count should be dismissed because it omits
an essential element of the charged crime. 	According to Candelario, the Supreme
Court’s decision in Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019),1 requires that the
1 Rehaif held that, under 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922 and 924(a)(2), the Government must prove “that the
defendant knew he possessed a firearm and also that he knew he had the relevant status when he
possessed it.” 139 S. Ct. at 2194; see also United States v. Lara, 970 F.3d 68, 86 (1st Cir. 2020) (noting
that § 924(a)(2) “contains the language that sets forth the knowledge-of-status element” for § 924(e)).
Case 2:21-cr-00015-JDL Document 167 Filed 09/13/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Government charge and prove that Candelario knew that his status as a felon
prohibited him from possessing a firearm and ammunition.
Candelario’s argument is contrary to binding precedent. 	In United States v.
Austin, the First Circuit rejected the defendant’s argument that Rehaif “obligate[s]
the government to prove his subjective knowledge that he was violating the law,”
explaining that “Rehaif imposes a scienter of status requirement: it . . . require[s] the
government to prove [the defendant] knew he was a felon.” 991 F.3d 51, 59 (1st Cir.
2021) (alteration omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States
v. Burghardt, 939 F.3d 397, 405-06 (1st Cir. 2019) (describing the Rehaif scienter-of-
status requirement as whether the defendant “knew when he possessed the gun that
he had previously been convicted of an offense punishable by more than a year in
prison”). 	The seven other circuits that have considered this issue have reached the
same conclusion. 	United States v. Moody, 2 F.4th 180, 197 n.6 (4th Cir. 2021)
(collecting cases).
Candelario contends that Austin is inapposite because, in that case, the
defendant had not raised the issue in the trial court, so the First Circuit was
reviewing the Rehaif issue for plain error. However, the important point derived from
Austin—which, again, comports with the conclusions of other circuit courts—is that
the “nature of the status element” under §§ 922(g) and 924(a)(2) does not require the
Government to prove that the defendant knew that he was prohibited from possessing
a firearm due to his status as a convicted felon. 	991 F.3d at 59. Austin’s clarity on
this point was in no way affected by the standard of review that the court applied.
Case 2:21-cr-00015-JDL Document 167 Filed 09/13/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Count Five of the Superseding Indictment alleges that Candelario knew that
he had previously been convicted of a felony and specifies four prior state felony
convictions. It also states that, with that knowledge, Candelario knowingly possessed
firearms 	and 	ammunition. 	These 	allegations 	sufficiently 	charge 	the 	essential
elements of the offense.
For the foregoing reasons, Candelario’s Motion to Dismiss Count Five (ECF
No. 126) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated this 13th day of September, 2021.
/s/ JON D. LEVY
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:21-cr-00015-JDL Document 167 Filed 09/13/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>