Was the State Appellate court decision contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, Strickland-v-Washington, due-process, 14th-amendment

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Was the State Appellate court decision contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.668 (1984), pursuant to Williams v. ' ‘Taylor 529 U.S. 362 and Hardy v. Chappell, 849 F.3d 803.(9th Cir. 2015) and in violation of Petitioner, Mr. White right to due process as secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution? Was Petitioner, Mr. White's trial counsel, was ineffective in negligent failing to file a Motion to dismiss the indictment due to the pre-indictment delay and seek the complainants’ hospital record that can not be deemed speculative and failure to established a reasonable probability in the light of clear and convincing evidence proving that petitioner supports his claims with material evidence and demonstrates a reasonable probability and in violation of Mr. White right to effective assistance of counsel as secured by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution? . ‘i