1. Whether in order to be legally sufficient, evidence supporting a conviction of violent crime in aid of racketeering must demonstrate that the defendant was actually a member of the alleged enterprise or sought to join the enterprise?

2. Whether evidence that the defendant occasionally sold drugs with members of the alleged enterprise is sufficient to establish an enterprise-related motive?

3. Whether compelling a defendant to participate in a joint trial in which he is charged with very few racketeering acts results in unfair spillover prejudice when he is acquitted of racketeering and racketeering conspiracy?

4. Whether, as urged in Petitioner's Pro Se brief, Petitioner's rights to due process and a fair trial were violated by the Government's failure to timely disclose 3500 material regarding prosecution witness Michael Farmer?

5. Whether, as urged in Petitioner's Pro Se brief, Petitioner's rights to due process and a fair trial were violated because the evidence of the drug conspiracy and drug related murder was legally insufficient?

6. Whether, as urged in Petitioner's Pro Se brief, the district court improperly instructed the jury with respect to aiding and abetting?

7. Whether, as urged in Petitioner's Pro Se brief, the district court improperly instructed the jury with respect to "use" of a firearm?

Whether evidence supporting a conviction of violent crime in aid of racketeering must demonstrate the defendant was a member of the alleged enterprise