1. Whether the district court committed plain error in failing to instruct the jury that the evidence must establish both that appellant Anthony Smith knew he possessed a firearm and ammunition and that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm and ammunition.

2. Whether the convictions must be reversed and the indictment dismissed because the indictment failed to charge a critical element of an offense under Section 922(g)(1), i.e., that Smith subjectively knew he was prohibited from possessing a firearm.

3. Whether the combination of the above errors affected petitioner's substantial rights and the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.

Whether the district court committed plain error in failing to instruct the jury that the evidence must establish both that appellant Anthony Smith knew he possessed a firearm and ammunition and that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm and ammunition