Whether the district court's denial of relief and determination resulted from the incorrect interpretation of 'Assistance' under the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED SS (1) Whether ‘the district courts deriial of relief and determination, > of whether a breakdown in the adversarial process was created by the trial courts denial of defense counsels motion for ., continuance, resulted from the district courts’ incorrect “ a , interpretation of 'Assistance' as set forth in the right oe oo to effective Assistance of Counsel guaranteed by the Sixth a Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? oo (2) Whether the district courts denial of relief and determination, of whether defense counsel was either ~ or for failing to investigate the aoa defendants brain injury and craniotomy, resulted from the district courts incorrect interpretation of ‘Assistance' as set forth in the right to effective Assistance of Counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? (3) Whether the district courts' incorrect interpretation of ‘Assistance’ as set forth in the right to effective Assistance . of Counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. . Constitution effectively sanctioned the state-courts' objectively unreasonable application of Federal law as set forth within U.S. V. Cronic, Strickland V. Washington, Wiggins V. Smith, and Brecht V. Abrahamson?