Pursuant to Sup. Ct. R. 14(l)(a) Petitioner respectfully presents the following four questions for review. Petitioner also respectfully states the "Stipulation" mentioned in Questions 1 and 2 presented for review is annexed as Appendix A (la-5a).

1. Whether Petitioner is entitled to a new trial because defense counsel in connection with their advice to Petitioner to sign a Stipulation during the pre-trial phase of the proceedings (ostensibly to obtain Government consent to a bench trial) rendered ineffective assistance under the two-part Strickland v. Washington test on the grounds: (i) their advice to sign the Stipulation lacked any plausible strategic and/or tactical justification; (ii) defense counsel did not grasp the elements of the crime of attempted bank fraud under Section 1344 of Title 28 of the United States Code (Bank Fraud); (iii) defense counsel misapprehended the prejudicial consequences of the Stipulation in relation to the attempted bank fraud charged under Section 1344; (iv) defense counsel failed to disclose those consequences to Petitioner prior to Petitioner signing the Stipulation and (v) the Stipulation was equivalent to a guilty plea to attempted bank fraud foreclosing any outcome other than an adverse verdict at the close of the bargained for bench trial?

2. Assuming the advice defense counsel rendered to Petitioner relating to the Stipulation is constitutionally deficient under the first prong of the Strickland v. Washington test, does the magnitude of the deficiency of the advice constitute "structural error" rendering the trial an unreliable vehicle for determining guilt or innocence and automatically resulting in a presumption of prejudice requiring reversal of the conviction and entry of an order granting Petitioner a new trial?

3. Should the application for a certificate of appealability ("COA") be granted and the case remanded for further consideration of the ineffectiveness-of-counsel and/or structural error issues or in the alternative should the conviction be set aside and vacated and a new trial ordered on the ground Petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right based upon his demonstration: (i) jurists of reason could conclude the decision of the court of appeals refusing to grant a COA is debatable and/or incorrect; (ii) the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further and (iii) the denial of a COA in the court of appeals conflicts with: (a) the statutory threshold for granting a COA set forth in Section 2253(c)(2) of Title 28 of the United States Code and (b) relevant COA decisions of this Court.

4. Whether the circumstances of this case require reversal of the conviction and entry of an order granting a new trial: (i) to prevent irreparable damage to the fundamental integrity of the judicial process; (ii) to maintain and promote public confidence in our system of justice; (iii) to avoid undermining public perception of the fair administration of our justice system and (iv) to prevent the risk of injustice.

Whether the lower court erred in dismissing Petitioner's claims for lack of standing