Whether the petitioner received constitutionally effective assistance of counsel at trial

No question identified. : || | | Was denied rehire on September 18,1018. OW January 10 . L014 the prtitioner Eiled a Noriwee oF Appeal From that 3 decision With the Ninth Cireuit ( ourt oF AppaalsAN the S4itioners Clams Wave been vvwaus¢ed +o Mis level, oO = || The Petitioners Claims involve multiple Violations oF ‘ =|) WIS Cight +o Due Process and the Comptusory Process 7] undarc the Wh Amendment aS Wel as the perittoners 3 right +o a For trial Under the hth amandment The || $@ the petitioner cetreved Wis Stmrence wWithour due ca | TOCeSS OF law and recieved C2Stitution beyond Ws it ability to pau.tv® presumption of Corractnass used & 23 1 lookh Courts 1S Clearly &rronzeous, Borh Courts have ignored 3 1 Clearly established law and +e Constitutional provisions | 18 1 afforded +o a defendant tm a Criminal trial. Constitutional | “4 / Law %40.3the due process Clause oF the Federal consiit| a | Ution proibits the criminal Conviction of anu parson ax z | Uipt Upon proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: ( one a Stt+Ud tonal. Law $a-S 4u40.3A person Can not incur tne ze |} Lost oF \\barty For © Criminal oF Fange,, Without notice | a | and a maningrul Opportunity +o defend, and suth Opp-| a2 ortdnity AF nor the right to trial sue presumes as | 2] WR that a total want of anidente, 40 Support a chara ce || Will Covelude +e Case in Favor of +e accused* The rule =| that no parson Consistently With due process. may be | ce || Convicted oF a Crime Leeper Upon prook of autlt ond so ||_O reasonable doubt requires also that the Facrfinder 23 Wil rottionally appty that Standard +0 the Facts im | QNidancy _O reasonable dou ing OF OA Minimum one 2 based Upon reagon.) it must appear that rLasonable : rests Could Find the assessment of the netunacs Clasllims debatable or Wrong.(Slack ve Mcebaniel S14 U-S. 413] = |] HOU (2000 The district Court hag overlooked the petition|| Q&S ConStttvitonal claims and the Wrong standard of The 7 | MW Was bem Apotrad. On Olr IS 101B Fhe petitioner Erl; 8 | gd Objections to +he Report and -KRecommandation. Tre die > || Strict Court rearFirmed its detision and no C-0-A. Was 2 terran ‘3 the pesto iS now esata w_order 23 | For she petitioner +0 obtain cele. 3 | — _Quashons Presented — ~ || fhe Oppstlant OS Constttuttonal error resulted in the | Appailant anguers 1 Yes o || 1: Did the petitioner recieve, Constitutional LE Fective 2s trial Court, ai cs || Treal Court answers? YAS ; _|| Appellant ansuergstno -s—CSsSSC*d . | 2 . id the appellants Constituttonal riqwis to dee pro2 | CeSS and the Complesor COLES gat violated in +h 3 | Pre-Trial proceedinas. 3 | —_ Court angwerss No : 5 A lant ansuiers 2 ULS : ; 714 Did the peat ioner FRUWL @ For trial thar das Fund if ntaliy Correct, Withour pray dice. 2 Trial Court answars > yes Fea | oa answers. No 12 ie the appellant With the wwidinw in question | 3 TAISe A TLeasonable doubt With jurors oF reagonable ||_purdence. Ls | Treat Court ansders® No i25 | Appullant ansvers? Yes 2 ls \S_ the record SutFicent For the district Court +o | * make a disposition without holding an eidintiary vo | Waring. | : "| Trial Covrt answers’ Yes . = || Appillant answerss No a : —_ TABLE of CopTeETS . Opinions Btlow = Pg.ts | . Jurisd ttrionPq. ) . Coustitutiwnal and Statutory Prowisiens (nvolued3 A WO | . Strotemant of CaSePail ) : Reasons For Grontin wie Fo. 14 , . | Conc WS on~ Pg. 3 | 31 : | twWdEex To APPEDICES : | Appan dix ANinth Caccurt Court of Appeals ~Opmion | : as wndix BUnited Grates District Court Op mion : — California — Court — ——— 25 : . | OPBtoWS BELOW man 5 For Fraderal cases: . : . . = || The oOpiwniwn of the United States Court of Appeals ‘ Opprars at Apoendix-A+o the partition and 16 destqnst ated For publication, : 2 The opinion of the United States distritt Court appears pd 1 at Apprzndl-Bfo the pltrition ahd 1S desiqnated For 7 Yolication. 13 | For State Cases? ie | The Opinion OF the Wighest StateCourt +0 raved a i EML MLIKS Appwars At