Whether the district court's ruling, which implies that when a petitioner successfully proves that his counsel was ineffective, that petitioner must then show that the outcome of his trial would have resulted in an acquittal, conflicts with Jae Lee v. United States?

QUESTION PRESENTED 7 Garron T. Briggs pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or ; : more of cocaine, and one count of distribution of 28 grams or more of cocaine base. Mr. Briggs : _ filed a motion to vacate his conviction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that his guilty plea | was the product of ineffective assistance of counsel, and that, but for counsel's inaccurate advice, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on proceeding to trial. The district court recognized that Mr. Briggs’ “exhibits indeed indicate that defense counsel erred in his statements" to Mr. Briggs, but then applied an erroneous application of the law in denying the , claim by raising Mr. Briggs' burden to showing “that the outcome of his trial would have resulted in an acquittal." The district court's order squarely conflicts with Supreme Court precedent set forth in Jae Lee v. United States, 198 L. Ed. 2d 476 (2017), which specifically directed that _ "courts do not ask whether, had he gone to trial, the result of that trial would have been different : oO than the result of the plea bargain." Id. at484. Instead, “courts ask whether the defendant was prejudiced by the denial of the entire judicial proceeding to which he had a right. "Id. at 485. . a. Therefore, a“defendant can show prejudice by demonstrating a reasonable probability that, but ~ for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted-on going to trial” Id. at 485. ' The question presented by this petition is whether the district court's ruling, which : . implies that when a petitioner successfully proves that his counsel was ineffective, that petitioner _ must then show that the outcome of his trial would have resulted in an acquittal, conflicts with Jae , Lee v. United States? : 4 .