Whether the 'straw purchase' offense under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) requires the defendant to have known the seller was a 'Licensed Dealer'

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner plead guilty to one count of conspiring to commit straw purchases of firearms (as proscribed by 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6)) in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. She was not informed that the offense required the Government to prove that the conspirators must have known they were making straw purchases from sellers whom they knew to be “Licensed Dealers.” Further, Petitioner is the only person the United States has ever prosecuted for a firearms offense after signing and complying with an ATF Cease-and-Desist letter. The Questions Presented are as follows: QUESTION 1: IN LIGHT OF THIS COURT’S DECISION IN REHAIF V. UNITED STATES, 588 U.S. __, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 204 L. Ed. 2d 594 (2019) IS AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE “STRAW PURCHASE” OFFENSE DESCRIBED IN 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) THAT THE DEFENDANT HAVE KNOWN THE SELLER FROM WHOM SHE PURCHASED THE FIREARM TO BE A “LICENSED DEALER”? QUESTION 2: DID THE FIFTH CIRCUIT ERR IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER COULD BE CONVICTED OF VIOLATING 18 U.S.C. § 371 FOR CONSPIRING TO COMMIT A FEDERAL SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE [18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6)] WITHOUT A FACTUAL BASIS DEMONSTRATING THAT SHE HAD THE REQUISITE MENS REA TO CONVICT HER OF THE UNDERLYING SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE [i-.e. 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6)]? QUESTION 3: IF THE ANSWER TO BOTH 1 AND 2 ABOVE IS “YES”, WAS PETITIONER’S GUILTY PLEA KNOWING AND VOLUNTARY? QUESTION 4: WAS PETITIONER’S PROSECUTION A SELECTIVE PROSECUTION IN VIOLATION OF PETITIONER’S RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION, AS GUARANTEED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES? i