Whether 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) requires proof of a defendant's knowledge of their felon status or the firearm's interstate commerce connection

QUESTIONS) PRESENTED (i) Whether 18 U.S.C. % 924(2) provides for Criminal penalties to felons who possess Firearms in interstate Commerce absent proothat they Knew of their-felon Status, or oF +he Firearms movement in interstate tommerce (a)Whether denial of Teboachye’ habeas torpus Rehaif review is ineonsisent with the. ~— dectrinal underpinnings like those held in Bailey pursuantto $424(C\¢!) Compared 40 £ TA IC) — Lin the Elevenhh Circuit}. (3)Whelher the Supreme Court's opinion in Rehait determined that Rehaif's new rule of skibutory law was ‘tetroactively’ applicable. under Teague v. Lane's conclusion eStablishing the retoachviy of new substantive rules. _ . (4)Whether Behalf is ‘Rehoachve to cases already clasedinthe lower Courts from farther habeas review prior to H#s decision Cretroachve: For colaleral tonsbatonal or (5)Whether Rehaif's “status! (or priors} element treated a ‘retroactive’ Sith Amendment , Fight to ajury trial for closed cases;or would Almendarez-Torrés V-Unibed States, 533 ——-US.224 01998), being reheard, resolve the tonsistent questioning about thewse Dr “stahas" OF prior before. a trial jury cancer ning the instant “eonvicHon' andnok a defendant's serkeneing.. ry . Oo