Whether Petitioner Gibson's counsel provided him with ineffective assistance of counsel

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED | Se , QUESTION # ONE: Whether Petitioner Gibson's counsel provided him with ineffective ssaistance of counsel by failing to effectively investiga-~ : te his HYTA dismissed and expunged charge via MCL. § 762.11 and not. os objecting to the assignment of being assessed 1-Criminal History Point, however when under Michigan Law it does not constitute a convicti. on of a crime, thus did counsel violate his Sixth Amendment Rights of the U.S. const ttn 2? -o . : ; ) : : / QUESTION # TWO: Did Petitioner Gibson's counsel provide him with ineffective assistance of counsel during the sentencing phase by : : . failing to object] to Gibson's Supervisory Role Adjustment via § 3B1. . 7 “4 as part of the brug conspiracy, therefore did counsel violate his : Sixth Amendment rhahts of the U.S. Constitution ran : QUESTION # THREE:\ Whether Petitioner Gibson's counsel rendered ine_ . . ffective assistance of counsél by failing to, advise him of his spe. edy Trial Rights nd failing to seek dismissal of the Indictment on the ground that he was deprived of his right to a Speedy Trial-via ' 18 U.S.C. § 3161 te) thus did counsel violate his Sixth Amendme-. ; So at Rights of the U.S. Constitution 2 . | a, . N . . . | oo ; = : | . | . . en > . — |