1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by allowing the government to introduce highly prejudicial evidence and argument linking Ross to a violent criminal gang, even though this evidence was wholly unnecessary to the government's proof to the jury, and served no purpose other than to prejudice Ross in the eyes of the jury.

2. Whether, by failing to grant Ross's motion for a mistrial based on the prejudicial use of "gang"-related language by not only the government and but also by Ross's co-defendant on cross-examination, the district court abused its discretion.

3. Whether the district court further exacerbated the prejudice by inappropriately empaneling an anonymous and partially sequestered jury. Such an action not at all subtly communicated to the jurors that there were dangers against which they were being "protected" by the court, based of the characteristics and history of the defendants. What those dangers were came into high relief as the government (and the co-defendant) repeatedly hammered the jury with increasingly outrageous – but in no way relevant or necessary – details about Ross's affiliation with an extremely ruthless and violent gang.

Whether the district court abused its discretion by allowing prejudicial gang-related evidence and failing to grant a mistrial, thereby violating the defendant's right to a fair trial