Whether the denial of Petitioner's ineffective assistance claim violated constitutional rights

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the District Court, and the New Jersey state courts' ruling, denying Petitioner’s ineffective assistance claim of trial counsels, violated Petitioner’s fifth, sixth and fourteenth amendment constitutional rights to a fair trial and to due process of law? a. Where trial counsels failed to argue: that’ the Interrogation: Advice of Rights Form used in this case, which required Petitioner to simultaneously acknowledge ; and waive his Miranda rights; rendered his resultant, alleged, oral, unrecorded, unwritten, unsigned, statements unconstitutional, requiring suppression as a matter of federal law. b. Where trial counsels failed to request DNA testing and fingerprints analysis of evidence presented at trial, thereby violating Petitioner’s due process protections. 2. Did the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the District Court and state courts’ ruling that Petitioner did not receive a manifestly excessive sentence, necessitating reduction, was an error violating Petitioner's due process rights and the holdings of United State Supreme court ruling in Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013). i