Whether evidence of uncharged cocain trafficking was, admitted erroneously because it was not inextricable intertwined with the charges in the indictment and because the evidence of uncharged conduct was not necessary to understand the charged offense.

Whether the government's presentation of the evidence and the omission of a limiting instruction broadened the basis under which the defendant could have been convicted where the indictment was specific and narrowly drawn.

Whether the govrenment violated the defendant's due process rights by imporperly vouching for its cooperators credibility and by referring to facts not in evidence.

Whether evidence of uncharged cocain trafficking was admitted erroneously