1. Whether the First Circuit's op/order affirming
Petitioner's sentence and conviction finding no plain
error when the United States commented on Petitioner's
silence as to specific areas which were not addressed
in Petitioner's direct testimony warrants certiorari ?

2. Whether the First Circuits ruling on Petitioner's
Rule 29 motion should be remanded for a new trial ?

3. Whether Appellate Counsel was ineffective for
filing a direct appeal on Petitioner's behalf without
reviewing the evidence. Specifically, the First Circuit
pointed out "Curiously, unlike the jury and us, Charriez's
Appellate Counsel has not looked at the photos ? See App
A.

Whether the First Circuit's op/order affirming Petitioner's sentence and conviction finding no plain error when the United States commented on Petitioner's silence as to specific areas which were not addressed in Petitioner's direct testimony warrants certiorari?