WHETHER IN LIGHT OF Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 204 L.Ed.2d (2019), WAS THE EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION WHEN THE GOVERNMENT FAILS TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE PETITIONER KNEW OR REASONABLY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT HAD BEEN CONVICTED OF ONE OF A NARROW RANGE OF FELONY OFFENSES?

Whether the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction when the government fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the petitioner knew or reasonably should have known that the confidential informant had been convicted of one of a narrow range of felony offenses