Whether the lower courts erred by failing to rule or even consider on the record whether Ms Kantete was advised of her 'risk factors' in proceeding to trial; a material and critical allegation of her Section 2255 motion?

QUESTION PRESENTED Petitioner Hope Kantete proceeded to a jury trial in the face of overwhelming evidence. She was convicted and sentenced, inter alia, to 262 months incarceration. The conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. New counsel subsequently filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging her plea of not guilty and her sentence due to ineffective assistance of counsel in the plea process by demonstrating a reasonable probability that, due to counsel’s failure to fully and competently advise her of her “risk factors” in proceeding to trial, she would have pleaded guilty instead of going to trial. The District Court denied the petition by holding that, since she was aware of the potential “sentence” for going to trial and aware of the “sentence” offered in a plea agreement, she was sufficiently advised in the plea process. The District Court’s findings specifically did NOT include whether she was advised in any way, shape or form as to the likelihood of conviction if she proceeded to trial and lost. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed. 1) Whether the lower courts erred by failing to rule or even consider on the record : whether Ms Kantete was advised of her “risk factors” in proceeding to trial; a material and critical allegation of her Section 2255 motion? i