I. Whether trial counsel's failure to make an
argument that courts of appeals outside the circuit
have accepted (and the circuit has not addressed) may
amount to constitutionally deficient assistance of
counsel or, instead, whether only directly controlling
precedent is relevant.

II. When a defendant and the Government have
agreed that the court will address at sentencing a factual question for purposes of imposing a statutory
mandatory-minimum sentence, whether they have
also implicitly agreed that the defendant's "offense of conviction" has "established" the factual finding for purposes of the Sentencing Guidelines.

Whether trial counsel's failure to make an argument that courts of appeals outside the circuit have accepted amounts to constitutionally deficient assistance of counsel