Whether Constitution and statutory provisions and Rule 11 violations may have rendered Arturo Rodriguez Ornalez's sentence and conviction constitutionally untenable

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED FOR REVIEW WHETHER CONSTITUTION AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND RULE 11 VIOLATIONS MAY HAVE RENDERED ARTURO RODRIGUEZ ORNALEZ'S SENTENCE AND CONVICTION CONSTITUTIONALLY UNTENABLE. (2) WHETHER FAILURE OF ORNALEZ’S COUNSEL TO CHALLENGE THE RATIONALE FOR THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT, WITH TWO PROSECUTORS AND NO SIGNATURE OF THE FORMAN IN THE SUBSEQUENT SUPERSEDING INDICTMENTS. ALSO IN HIS ANDERS BRIEF HE MISTATES THE LAW. THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THIS ERROR IS FAR-REACHING, CONSTITUTING INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AT BEST, AT WORST, CONSTRUCTIVE DENIAL OF COUNSEL, AT CRITICAL STAGES OF THE PLEA NEGOTIATIONS AND SENTENCING, CONSTITUTING STRUCTURAL ERROR.