I. Whether a state statute can be said to require the "use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(3)(b) if the offense, as specifically interpreted to by state appellate courts, can be accomplished by an act of omission such as withholding life-saving medication or sustenance.

II. Does this Court's harmless error standard require a reviewing court to determine if a substantial right was affected as the D.C. Circuit, Fourth Circuit, Fifth Circuit, Tenth Circuit and Eleventh Circuit require, or may the court simply apply their own harmless error standards in determining the validity of a jury's verdict as the First Circuit, Second Circuit, Sixth Circuit, Seventh Circuit and Eighth Circuits maintain?

Whether an act of omission can constitute the 'use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force' under 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(8)(A)