Was petitioner denied effective assistance of counsel below the standard mandate of the United States Constitution Amendment Six?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED : , 1. Was patitionsr dsanisd saffactiva assistanes of counssl balow tha standard mandata of tha Unitad Statas Constitution Amandmant ; Six ? : 2. Was patitonsar danisd dua procass by tha court balow not allowing tha psatitionsr to fila a Fadaral Habsaas Corpus Patition basa on factual avidancs that was not discovérad until aftar tima for appaal and discovarad aftar tims to fils Fadsral Habaas, Corpus patition ? . . 3. Was tha District Court arr by traat tha naw patition with sacond sucesssiva Fadsral Habsaas Corpus patition ? Whan is a naw Fadaral Habsaas Corpus Patition and Naw ground of " I.A.C." claim point out for Patitionar by tha District Judga ? ; : 4.Was Patitionar's conviction sacurad by way of dafansa counsal and Prosscutor witholding: a3vidanca in violation of : ; Brady v.Maryland ? : 5. Was Patitionsr's conviction sacurad by way of dafansa/ and District Attorney's Misscarrisa of Justica/Actual innocancs ? Mandats of tha United Statas Constitution. ? 6. Doss Patition mast tha critaria of. Slack v.McDanisl, ; . RET a, JUN 2 ¢ 2979 OFFICE OF Tre Clem SUPHEM! Coan oe | . » . ‘ i; . | ,