Was the petitioner denied due process and effective assistance of counsel?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Jamilal Gorcel's Propose ch Aes mony excanpoked andlor exonerated Peditioner ly wos of ne d-por WW ous . A\knove\s We Arcal neansert ets clearly and comnncs ey pecove Haak Me sory Considered no Sestimnony Nor encdence wWnaksoene of Maud packy aul 5 Seal coon ceemed Ns. Goro es proposed yestwnony UNE CESS ACY for Aol PLT OOSES ~ Was hk an onceasonalle WOPICEVON love cCoMtrory do Skeickland for reViews 0y courts 4d vEnard ne presume horn NEO daok Wis devel okvolteay Wos Lackey Ienposs ble? USCA Gj 3% USC 82254 GZ) CD, (3) Second. Wostnineson 5 ALL US LEY (Agu) Renrewrey coor's Wave UPHKEA he reasonobdleness of counsel's Avial sNroteay oe cause Ped\honer agreed Yo and consented to ik. Does Skeicklawnd peceny on defendant +o ANTLE Onda Consednd oO a Ava artroteay rida io Sukie cund fackvally \nposabole 5 cand were ne CONVEW ING courks e\ TANS han Anis Ceara Combwracy Lo oF aA ONnreasonadole aoa \Washinaton , AGL US 6b OAtH) | Was counsel's Anil Birakeey SO obviously foble, Wwnposarble, Ondad Nonsensica\ net cord only hone lbeen devised deiloerovrely: AS an act Hob US LES GABH) | \Nas i+ Lombiracy +O or an Lnreasonalole Agel cok, On of SheickKlawnd for PeNrensina coorks, No Wicd party auild evidence Whe soever Co USCA G4 3B USC 6 AaSH (AYE 4 Strickland v. WNaslninakon Ab US bb$ (Ath) | “Petiioner sianed a May A\ ROOT aoked Nowce of Wikkdrawol form Whiics avkhor— \ned BNQned conse) 5 Ms. Dragan y +o a | Vrowever, Nis. Drvaada had alweady Saae _ noved Wis cwropeca\ On Noe \ \O | 2OOT and had ~ eefosed’ do Informs Pesioner ot Who dhe aid . Kddinonally osoaned Counse 5 N\s.Novchenco sernninaked TeX Monec’s Pires PCR Honer cased aileagdrvons oF Due Process Violaons because he was deeaved of fair and Vrnedy OVOCESS of Wis eroce cay NAS y Yoo Ahe Dietack Couck found no Viola on oy Noldiney oe Aes Ws. Drvaqacn termnwaokeck Mme aceca\ aks PekiMoner’s Haowledae and LONSENN _ Were ne Disk Couch’ Ss Badd NAVs based ov , AN Unreasonable determination of Une Sacks and were Wane Radinas combrcacy to OF an UIA. ceasonoldte applicodhon of olcoly eNarXt Wed Federal law? USCA SNA 4 3B USC & AAGH GAAS QD she) | . . , Were ne actions coramik*ed oy Khe | Offic]e of Polblic Vefender, KepeNoke Division . Cour an nad Beinn or Cose Menoasemnen’ &ice, — couck Conkcary Yo or an Lnreasonable ape\\cakion of PetiMronects SH or VAM Amend. meat AaQnrs Ly Baie and Amely EV OCESS ot _ Ns proceech Nove and eroot ok ydicial collusion’ USCA BAN, AB LSC BASHODA |