What additional objective and contemporaneous evidence is required to satisfy the prejudice test this Court articulated in Hill v. Lockhart and other cases, where a defendant such as Carmichael has proved (1) he was not told about a pre-trial plea offer of 10-to-15 years; (2) he was not advised about his guidelines sentencing exposure; (3) he testified he would have accepted the pre-trial plea offer if his lawyers had properly advised him; (4) he repeatedly asked his lawyers to seek a pre-trial plea settlement; (5) he knew his attorneys were unprepared for trial and he had no viable defense; and (6) he received a sentence decades longer than the Government's pre-trial plea offer?

ESTIONS PRESENTED Foe LEWEW , Queshon Ont: whit additone/ vbjectve and ebnttentpor antous . eviclence 1S required To satisfy “the pre udice test this Cot articulated in “bWussours yFre aad othe ¥, Copper, where a, defendant ,suth as Carmichael, has proved (1) ht wis not told about pre-triad plea offer of 10 —fo-to Yyens ; (2) M Wwhd not advised about hes guicelenes sentencins exposure (3) be testified he would have aceeptid the pre-trial plea offer if his lawyers had propetly advised hin; (4) ke repeatedly : asked his lanyers to Seek a pre-trial plea settle ment; (8) he knew Mis atforntys Were unprepésed for Wiel ard he had | . no viable defense; and (0) he vecetved a Sentence decades longer . than +e Government's ‘pre-trial plea offer? 4 Question Two : Did the Elevents Curcurt count reversible \ ervor when tt dened Carmichael 6 ineffective asc stance of — apunsel claim wrthout considering the total ty of the evidence, “dy include”, where be was offered a post-trial plea offer that could have possibly Mnited 44S sentence te ‘20 years ( but ho guarantee bf 20 years) that bs lavyers ad vised hie not do accept, however, Carmichael yected his lawyers adunee and bued another lawyer te ty P accept that jolea offer, bat the Eleventh Crcust micinterpreted HLS evicknis ard wed purported heaing festroeony as olspositive that does not evist iy phe record BF all? . : . -/. IL. LIST OF Alt PARTIES 2D THE PRocEEDIG EélowW paren captin oF this case contains the have of all the +e WT. RELATED CASES = United Stables v, Cacuschael ,2*03cr0025-00! MT we1, u.6. District Court for the Wtiddle Distuct of Ma bans . fuel went enteed War. 26,2007, (caminel Judguent). . 8 United States, Carmichael, No, 07-400 WN, U.S. Court of Appeade Air He Eleventh Cucuh. viol ment | andere Way 24, 2009 ( Duect Appel) | © Carmichael v. Umted States, 558 U.§. 28, 130 LCA 1093 ( ven. 11,2010) | +++ N “Hea TL. TAME OF COnTENTS Contents: ) Pag (s): ; ZL. Queston Presented for Review . eee sr aes -' qr. List of: All Pactes to the Proceeding Below . .. 68 TL. Related Castle W.Tabl of Contr ooo VU.