Whether the U.S. District Court erred in deferring to the Arkansas State Courts' finding that Mr. Holloway was not prejudiced by both his trial and appellate counsel's failure to pursue the affirmative defense guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Mr. Holloway alleges that his post-conviction counsel’s ineffectiveness prejudiced the 7 defense when he failed to seek suppression of incriminating evidence seized from Mr. ) v Holloway’s cellphone, and counsel misinformed with regard to the effect of his guilty plea by « giving misinformed information as to the time to be served. Also his post-conviction appellate attorney abandoned the ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims. As a result Mr. Holloway suffered prejudice. In finding no prejudice as required under the Sirickland ineffective assistance standard, the Eighth Circuit relied upon the district court’s statement of facts, but significantly misstated the slanted version of the facts. This case thus presents the following questions: Did the U.S. District Court err in deferring to the Arkansas State Courts finding that Mr. Holloway was not prejudiced by both his trial appellate counsel’s failure to pursue the affirmative defense guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. r. i