Question One: What additional objective and evidentiary evidence is required to satisfy "the prejudice test" that this Court articulated in "Missouri v. Frye" and other v. Cooper, where a defendant, such as Carmichael, has proved (1) he was not told about pre-trial plea offer of 10-to-10 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?

Question Two: Did the Eleventh Circuit commit reversible error when it denied Carmichael's ineffective assistance of counsel claim without considering the totality of the evidence, by include, where he was offered a post-trial plea offer that could have possibly limited his sentence to 20 years (but no guarantee of 20 years) that his lawyers advised him not to accept, however, Carmichael rejected his lawyers advice and hired another lawyer to try to accept that plea offer, but the Eleventh Circuit misinterpreted his evidence and used purported hearing testimony as dispositive that does not exist in the record at all?

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?