## Facts

- Khalil Sarraj was an Illinois resident with a prior felony conviction, making it unlawful for him to possess a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- Sarraj knew federal law barred him from possessing guns but sought to obtain firearms because he feared (and was angry at) former associates after an apparent failed robbery attempt tied to a prescription-narcotics scheme.
- After the incident, Sarraj made statements indicating he intended to get guns and shoot those associates if he encountered them again.
- Sarraj asked an acquaintance to help him obtain guns; that person was working as a confidential informant for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF).
- ATF agents set up a reverse-sting operation in which agents posed as illegal firearm sellers rather than buyers of contraband.
- To ensure the federal “in or affecting commerce” element of § 922(g)(1) would be met, agents intentionally selected two “prop” guns from ATF inventory that they knew were manufactured outside Illinois.
- During the arranged sale in Illinois, Sarraj examined multiple guns and purchased two handguns; he briefly possessed them and was immediately arrested.
- Sarraj was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm under § 922(g)(1).
- He entered a conditional guilty plea under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(a)(2), reserving the right to appeal the district court’s rulings rejecting his challenges to the interstate-commerce element and the constitutionality of the operation.

## Issues

1. Whether § 922(g)(1)’s “in or affecting commerce” element is satisfied by proof that the firearms were manufactured out of state and therefore crossed state lines at some time before the defendant’s possession, even when the firearms were supplied by ATF from its “prop” inventory in a reverse sting.
2. Whether federal agents may constitutionally conduct a reverse sting that intentionally supplies the interstate-commerce nexus for a § 922(g)(1) prosecution, consistent with Commerce Clause limits and federalism principles (including United States v. Lopez).
3. Whether Sarraj’s conditional guilty plea and litigation in the district court preserved these challenges for appellate review.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed Sarraj’s conviction and sentence.
- The court held the interstate-commerce element of § 922(g)(1) was met because the guns were manufactured outside Illinois, meaning they necessarily traveled in interstate commerce at some point before Sarraj possessed them.
- The court rejected the argument that the guns’ status as government-held “prop” firearms (or removal from ordinary commercial channels) negated their prior interstate movement for purposes of § 922(g)(1).
- The court held that the Constitution does not bar ATF from supplying out-of-state firearms in a reverse sting to ensure the federal element is satisfied; Lopez did not require a different result.
- The court concluded Sarraj’s conditional guilty plea properly preserved his legal challenges for appeal.

## Legal Principles

- Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the “in or affecting commerce” element is satisfied by showing that the firearm moved across state lines at any time before the defendant’s possession, including where the only proof is that the firearm was manufactured in another state.
- The interstate-commerce requirement in § 922(g)(1) functions as a jurisdictional predicate tied to the firearm’s history; it does not depend on the defendant’s knowledge of the firearm’s interstate travel.
- A firearm’s prior interstate movement is not erased because the government later stores it, uses it as a “prop” gun, or supplies it during an undercover investigation.
- Reverse-sting operations may supply facts that satisfy statutory elements, and courts generally do not invalidate otherwise valid prosecutions merely because law enforcement chose an investigative method that made federal charges available.
- A conditional guilty plea under Rule 11(a)(2) can preserve appellate review of specified legal rulings, including challenges to the legal sufficiency of the interstate-commerce nexus and constitutional objections to the investigative method.

## Conclusion

United States v. Sarraj held that § 922(g)(1) is satisfied when a felon possesses a firearm that had previously crossed state lines, and that ATF may conduct a reverse sting using out-of-state “prop” guns to ensure that interstate-commerce element is met; the Seventh Circuit therefore affirmed Sarraj’s conviction following his conditional guilty plea.


United States v. Sarraj, 665 F.3d 916 (2012)