APPELLATE COUNSEL WAS GROSSLY INEFFECTIVE, BY ARGUING A MATERIAL VARIANCE IN THE INDICTMENT, INSTEAD OF THE MORE EGREGIOUS CONSTRUCTIVE AMENDMENT OF THE INDICTMENT.

WHETHER BY REASON OF A FATAL CONSTRUCTIVE AMENDMENT OT PEREZ'S INDICTMENT, HIS SENTENCE AND CONVICTION SHOULD BE DISMISSED AB INITlO.

WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT'S IMPOSITION OF A SUBSTANTIALLY UNREASONABLE SENTENCE, AND THE COURT OF APPEAL'S ENDORSEMENT OF IT, CREATES AN "IMPRIMATUR TO A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE" IN LIGHT OF THE PROPORTIONALITY OF SENTENCE HOLDINGS OF UNITED STATES V. KIMBROUGH (CITATIONS OMITTED) AND UNITED STATES V. RITA (CITATIONS OMITTED) WHEN ALL OF PEREZ'S CO-DEFENDANTS WERE EXONERATED PURSUANT TO PLEA DEALS.

Whether appellate counsel was grossly ineffective by arguing a material variance instead of a constructive amendment