United States v. Qazi, No. 18-10483 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit reversed defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. In United States v. Du Bo, 186 F.3d 1177, 1179 (9th Cir. 1999), an indictment missing an essential element that is properly challenged before trial must be dismissed. At issue in this appeal was whether defendant properly challenged his indictment pre-trial, thereby triggering the Du Bo rule.
The panel followed its well-established obligation to construe pro se filings liberally and held that defendant properly challenged his indictment under Du Bo's automatic-dismissal rule. In this case, defendant's indictment neither tracked the language of 18 U.S.C. 922(g) nor set forth the elements of the offense, because it did not allege that he had knowledge of his felon status pursuant to Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019). Therefore, the panel directed the district court to dismiss his indictment.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel reversed a conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), and remanded with instructions to dismiss the indictment, in a case in which the pro-se defendant moved before trial to dismiss the indictment for failure to state an offense. While the defendant’s appeal was pending, the Supreme Court held in Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), that a defendant’s knowledge of his felony status is a required element under Section 922(g). The defendant’s indictment did not contain this element. Under United States v. Du Bo, 186 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 1999), an indictment missing an essential element challenged before trial must be dismissed regardless of whether the omission prejudiced the defendant. Liberally construing the defendant’s pro-se objection to the indictment, the panel held that because the defendant identified the specific legal theory for why his indictment was deficient—that it was missing a required element—he did enough to trigger Du Bo’s automatic-dismissal rule. UNITED STATES V. QAZI 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.