ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE DISMISSAL

S. THOMAS ANDERSON, Chief District Judge.

Before the Court is Defendant James Baker's 2255/Rule 3231 Motion for Immediate Dismissal of Prosecution Based on the District Court's Lack of Jurisdiction to Enforce a Judgment Against Petitioner as Petitioner Has Not Been Charged Nor Convicted of a Crime Against the United States Based on the Plain Language of the Statutory Text of 18 U.S.C. [sic] 922(g)(1) Recently Interpreted by United States Supreme Court in Rehaif v. United States, 588 U.S. [sic] (2019) filed on July 23, 2019. On December 7, 2011, a jury found Defendant guilty of one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), one count of drug trafficking in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and one count of using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).

In the Motion before the Court, Defendant argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction due to a supposed defect in the indictment. According to Defendant, the indictment failed to allege all of the elements of the section 922(g)(1) offense, specifically that Defendant knew he had a prior felony conviction at the time he illegally possessed the firearm as charged in the indictment.1 The Court finds that Defendant's argument is without merit. The Supreme Court has held that a defect in an indictment has no effect on a district court's subject-matter jurisdiction over the indicted offense. United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 629 (2002) (overruling Ex parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1 (1887)). Therefore, Defendant's Motion for Immediate Dismissal is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.