When conducting an analysis under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f) and Strickland v. Washington, will equivocal warnings given by a judge pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and/or boilerplate language contained in a plea agreement cure an attorney's affirmative misadvice to a defendant about the mandatory nature of deportation upon a plea to an aggravated felony

QUESTION PRESENTED In Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), the Court held that when the immigration consequence of pleading guilty to a crime is “truly clear,” an attorney’s duty to correctly inform the defendant of that consequence is “equally clear.” Jd. at 369. Thus, an attorney’s failure to advise a defendant that deportation is mandatory upon a plea to an aggravated felony is constitutionally ineffective assistance under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Circuit Courts have split on whether an attorney’s affirmative misadvice about the mandatory nature of deportation upon pleading guilty to an aggravated felony can be cured by general warnings from a judge or the prosecution. The question presented in this petition is the following: When conducting an analysis under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f) and Strickland v. Washington, will equivocal warnings given by a _ judge pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and/or boilerplate language contained in a _ plea agreement cure an_ attorney’s affirmative misadvice to a defendant about the mandatory nature of deportation upon a plea to an aggravated felony.