Whether plainerror-review-for-failure-to-instruct-on-an-element-of-the-offense-based-upon-an-intervening-U.S.-Supreme-Court-decision-allows-a-federal-Court-of-Appeals-to-review-beyond-the-scope-of-the-trial-record-and-rely-on-facts-not-proven-to-the-jury

QUESTION PRESENTED In Rehaif v. United States, 139 8S. Ct. 2191, 2194 (2019), this Court held that 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 924(a)(2) require the government to prove not only that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm, but also that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing one. The question presented here is: Whether this Court should grant Certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Circuits and address whether plainerror review for failure to instruct on an element of the offense, based upon an intervening U.S. Supreme Court decision, allows a federal Court of Appeals to review beyond the scope of the trial record and rely on facts not proven to the jury, including a presentence report containing facts about a defendant’s prior convictions that was not admitted at trial, when analyzing whether the error impacted the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the defendant’s trial? i