Whether a criminal defendant has waived a claim that the indictment failed to charge an element of the offense

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether a criminal defendant has waived a claim that the indictment failed to charge an element of the offense where the claim arose while his case was on direct appeal, when this Court first recognized the element in Rehaif v. United States, --U.S. --189 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), abrogating uniform Circuit decisions defining the elements of the offense? 2. How does plain-error review apply when a criminal defendant argues that his plea colloquy did not explain all of the elements of the offense, and the trial record does not contain relevant information because the omitted element was first recognized while the case was on direct appeal? 3. Whether the First Circuit erroneously applied Moncriefte v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (2013), Mathis v. United States, --U.S. ---, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016), Gonzalez v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (2007), and the rule of lenity when it concluded that where a state law is ambiguous, but can reasonably be construed to criminalize certain conduct that might fall outside of the ACCA, the defendant must show that the state actually has or would prosecute this non-generic conduct? 4, Whether this Court should reconsider the holding of A/mendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), given that it conflicts with other sentencing cases of this Court by permitting sentence enhancements based on prior convictions that were not pled or proven? i