Whether the mandate rule bars consideration and adjudication of newly raised claims under a Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel claim

QUESTIONS PRESENTED. . ; “4. Whether the mandate rule bars consideration and adjudication : of newly raised claims, under a Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel claim, that are based upon underlying , oo . factual predicates that were never raised by counsel nor ; considered by the appellate court? Can the mandate rule bar consideration and readjudication of a previously raised : claim, under a Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance of : counsel claim, when the appellate court's prior decision was | ; based upon reliance on false positions and deliberate a . misrepresentations of the record which counsel failed to “expose? . : . ; . : ; 2. Whether counsel provided ineffective assistance in, inter alia, failing to object to, or expose in counsels' own closing arguments, any aspect of the government's egregiously . improper closing arguments, such as the prosecutors’: ; consistent and repeated misstatements of the record to ‘ fashion. arguments calling defense witnesses liars;repeated : . arguments that the Defendants put their witnesses to lie; misrepresentations of counsels' arguments to fashion , rebuttals based on those misrepresentations; vouching with arguments the prosecutors knew to be factually untrue; ; denigration of the defense arguments as a fraud; unresponsive , ; ‘ "guilty by association" rebuttal argument; becoming an unsworn witness in providing virtual testimony in a rebuttal unresponsive to counsels' arguments; misstatements of the law in stating that an acquittal rested on the jury finding that ‘ _ the government witnesses lied and made everything up; and vouching with the government's integrity in stating that to . disbelieve the government witnesses required that the jury believe there was "some grand conspiracy by the government" . to tell the witnesses what to say and that such a finding would be "just ridiculous"? , 3. Whether counsel provided ineffective assistance and caused 7 overwhelming prejudice to petitioners, in proffering to the : jury in opening statements what two alibi witnesses would prove despite never having even spoken to one of those : . witnesses until the day of his testimony and then ; ne inexplicably failing to call the other? Was there . overwhelming prejudice when the testifying alibi witness ; a _ could not provide the testimony promised to the jury and provided hearsay testimony that was contradicted by record : : evidence and which was the basis of the government's arguments (by way of misrepresentations of the witness's testimony) calling that witness a liar and stating that : ; petitioners put him to lie? . CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS RELEVANT TO THIS PETITION United States Constitution, Amendment V ("due process" clause) No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise . infamous crime, . . . nor be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law . United States Constitution, Amendment VI ("assistance of counsel" clause) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the : right. . . to have the assistance of counsel for his defense JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254 to review the Summary Order, dated April 19, 2019, and subsequent Order denying rehearing and rehearing en banc, dated July 9, 2019, of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Court of Appeals had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The United States District Court had jurisdiction in the first instance under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255 and 1331, and original jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. Lii