Whether the defendant's stipulation at trial was plain error warranting relief on the sufficiency of the evidence

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Whether, on plain error review and following this Court’s decision in Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), a defendant’s stipulation at trial that he had been convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year in prison, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), but silent as to his knowledge of that conviction at the time he was alleged to possess the firearm, was plain error warranting relief on the sufficiency of the evidence? Whether the Eighth Circuit, on one side of a circuit split, erred in relying on a defendant’s stipulation at trial that he had been convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year in prison while conducting its plain error analysis, where that stipulation was entered at a time the defendant could not have known its effects based on case law overturned by Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019).