Whether the Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit erred in not applying the per se presumed prejudice rule

QUESTIONS) PRESENTED QUESTIONONE . 7 Whether, when the Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit, found that "both the threat of fees and the threat of potential sanctions created a conflict of interest that adversely affected counsel's performance", but held that "the Supreme Court's reasoning regarding when prejudice should be presumed does not control", they ought to have first determined four things: 1.) if itis a constructive denial of counsel; 2.) if it occurred at a critical stage; 3.) if there was any waiver by the defendant; 4.) if itis a . fundamentally unfair structural error, which would have led them to apply the per se presumed prejudice rule, failure of which: resulted in lack of unanimity on presumed prejudice: within the Ninth Circuit itself; with other Circuits; and with the : Supreme Court? ~ ; : “Ss — QUESTION TWO : Whether as found by the Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit, "where, as here, the actual conflict is relegated to a single ; moment of the representation and resulted in a single identifiable decision that adversely affected the defendant”, if that "single _ moment" occurred at a critical stage of the pre-trial proceedings, whether that obliterates any need for a defendant to show prejudice, as that "single identifiable decision", becomes a fundamentally unfair structural error, affecting the framework on which the trial proceeds, thereby warranting the per se rule of presumption of prejudice, which must lead to a reversal of the’ conviction obtain there from? . re . . .