Whether the government must prove that the defendant used a means of identification without the consent of its owner to sustain an aggravated identity theft conviction, and whether a district court's jury instruction error on mens rea can be considered harmless beyond a reasonable doubt

1. Whether the government must prove that the defendant used a means of identification without the consent of its owner, that is, stole the identity, in order to sustain a conviction for aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A. 2. Whether a district court’s error in instructing the jury on a mens rea standard that was not alleged in the indictment and does not exist under the charged statutes can be considered harmless beyond a reasonable doubt by an appellate court when the defendant contests the mens rea element at trial.