I. DID THE GOVERNMENT FAIL TO PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CONVICTIONS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT?

II. WAS PETITIONER RATHBURN DENIED HIS RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION, TO PRESENT A DEFENSE AND TO A TRIAL BY JURY WHEN THE TRIAL COURT ALLOWED THE GOVERNMENT TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE THAT ENDUSERS OF THE SPECIMENS WERE CONCERNED THAT THE SPECIMENS WERE INFECTIOUS WHEN USED AT THE COURSES AND THEREFORE WOULD HAVE REJECTED THEM, BUT PRECLUDED CROSS-EXAMINATION AND PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT THE SPECIMENS WERE NOT INFECTIOUS AT THE TIME OF THE COURSES?

III. CONTRARY TO LAW, DID THE DISTRICT COURT ALLOW INADMISSIBLE INTERPRETATIONS BY THE GOVERNMENT WITNESSES AS TO WHAT THE SERVICE AGREEMENT ACTUALLY MEANT TO VARY AND ADD TO THE EXPRESSED TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT, AND THEN REFUSED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY CONSISTENT WITH THE LAW?

IV. WAS PETITIONER DENIED HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND A FUNDAMENTALLY FAIR TRIAL WHEN THE GOVERNMENT REPEATEDLY SUBJECTED THE JURY TO GRAPHIC AND HIGHLY INFLAMMATORY, GRUESOME PHOTOGRAPHS?

V. SHOULD COUNT TEN BE VACATED BECAUSE THE FEDERAL REGULATIONS REGARDING CATEGORY B INFECTIOUS SUBSTANCES VIOLATES DUE PROCESS BY FAILING TO GIVE FAIR NOTICE OF PRECISELY WHAT CONDUCT IS PROHIBITED, IS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE AND THE GOVERNMENT'S WITNESS GAVE MISLEADING TESTIMONY ABOUT WHAT THE REGULATIONS REQUIRE?

VI. WAS PETITIONER RATHBURN DENIED HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT REFUSED TO GIVE INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING INTERPRETATION OF THE SERVICE AGREEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE DEFENSE?

Whether the government failed to present sufficient evidence to support the convictions beyond a reasonable doubt