Whether a reviewing court may consider a defendant's criminal history facts not admitted at trial when determining if an omission of an essential element in a § 922(g)(1) indictment and jury instructions affected the defendant's substantial rights

QUESTION PRESENTED In Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 2194 (2019), this Court held that 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 924(a)(2) require the government to prove that “the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and also that he knew he had the relevant status when he possessed it.” The “relevant status” pertinent to this case is that Petitioner had a prior conviction for “a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.” 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The circuits are expressly split on a question of great importance with respect to cases that were tried to a jury before this Court decided Rehaif: When determining whether a defendant’s substantial rights were affected by an indictment and jury instructions that omitted an essential element of a § 922(g)(1) offense, i.e., that the defendant knew he previously had been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, may a reviewing court consider facts about a defendant’s criminal history that were not admitted at trial, including facts culled from a presentence report? i INTERESTED PARTIES The caption contains the names of all of the parties interested in the proceedings. ii