Whether it is proper to presume that a certificate of FDIC insurance issued 23 years earlier, combined with the statement of a bank officer that FDIC insurance was in place two years after the date of the charged offense, proves beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt, the indispensable element of proof of FDIC insurance at the time of the offense.

Whether the Petitioner's conduct in signing a document with another's name, on behalf of a Corporation, where the third party bank acknowledged that it did not rely upon the signature in extending the loan, did not constitute "use" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1028 as charged in Count Five.

Whether it is proper to presume that a certificate of FDIC insurance issued 23 years earlier, combined with the statement of a bank officer that FDIC insurance was in place two years after the date of the charged offense, proves beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt, the indispensable element of proof of FDIC insurance at the time of the offense