Whether the District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's rejection of Petitioner's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim(s) were contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of Strickland-and-Cronic and their progenies in light of the evidence of Sixth-Amendment violations during court proceedings?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED . ! . ys . _ Whether the District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's rejection of Petitioner's ineffective assistance of ~ counsel claim(s) were contrary to, or involved an unreasonable 7 application of Strickland and Cronic |infra], and there progenies in light of the evidence of Sixth Amendment during court proceedings ? : : II Whether due process of the Fifth.Amendment was violated when the : District Court denied a pro se habeas Petitioner a fair opportunity : ; to obtain viable discoverable material of his case in order to prove an actual conflcit of interest that concerned a prior romantic , relationship between defense counsel and the prosecutor,:and would that further violate the Sixth Amendment ? ; i III Whether this case requires a remand back to the lower Court(s) in . the interest of justice when the record demonstrates an overriding need for national uniformity of Federal Law in conjuction with the . Supreme Court and other U.S. Court of Appeal(s) legal precedents to : the cause and prejudice standard of the Sixth Amendment guarantee, — specifically when counsel was absent at a critical stage of the criminal proceedings, allowing the Magistrate Judge to impermissibly participate in plea negotiations, and did that violate Rule 11 of ; the Federal Rule. of Criminal Procedure 2 4) a