whether-the-us-district-court-abused-its-discretion

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW I. WHETHER THE US DISTRICT COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION FOR FAILURE TO CONDUCT [A]N EVIDENTIARY HEARING PURSUANT TO 28 SECTION 2255(b) IN LIGHT OF A-FACTUAL DISPUTE THAT REQUIRE A CREDIBILITY DETERMINATION TO . RESOLVE THE LEGAL QUESTION OF WHETHER TRIAL COUNSEL WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY INEFFECTIVE DURING PRE-TRIAL FOR FAILURE TO ADVISE THE PETITIONER OF THE EFFECTS OF 21 USC § 851 ENHANCEMENTS UPON PETITIONER'S SEN-~ TENCE, AND THE AVAILABILITY OF PLEA OPTIONS IN PETITIONER'S CASE, DEPRIVED HIM OF RIGHT TO COUNSEL DURING A CRITICAL STAGE OF PROCEEDING? II. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURTS DECISION DENYING RELIEF UNDER 28 USC § 2255 IS IN CONFLICT WITH THIS COURT PRECEDENT IN KIMMELMAN V MORRISON, 477 US 362 (1986) THAT ESTABLISH UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF PETITEONER"S CASE, TRIAL COUNSEL WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY INEEFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO FILE A MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE ILLEGALLY OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF FOURTH AMENDMENT WHERE PETITIONER HAD [A]N LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN THE CURTILAGE OF HIS PROPERTY? -i