In light of the facts of this case, was the defense counsel ineffective in light of this court's precedent in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)?

Did counsel's advice to Adams to engage in proffer statements with the government, contingent upon an inherently unreliable polygraph examination, amount to ineffective assistance of counsel, as elucidated by the supreme court's precedent in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 s. Ct. 2052 (1984)?

II. Was Kostovski's ineffectiveness demonstrated by her failure to contest the Presentence Investigation Report's assertion that Adams was subject to a minimum 25-year term on count 5 under § 924(c)?

III. Was counsel ineffective in failing to seek acquittal on 924(c) count due to insufficient evidence meeting both legal and factual elements beyond a reasonable doubt?

IV. Was Kostovski's ineffectiveness in failing to adequately communicate the plea offer to Adams, hindering his ability to make an informed decision?

V. Was Kostovski's failure to move for acquittal, given that all Experts who testified were not admitted as Experts under fed. R. Evid. 702, result in a violation of Adams' Sixth Amendment rights to a fair trial?

VI. Was counsel in effective for failing to file a coram nobis petition prior to sentencing, alerting the court to the potential illegality of the first 924(c) conviction under the possession theory of conviction, constitute a violation of the defendant's rights that warrants reconsideration by this court?

Was the defense counsel ineffective under Strickland v. Washington?