Whether an Omission by habeas Counsel for Failing to Include a
Supporting fact that Appellate Counsel was Ineffective, after
Petitioner Specifically requested it, is a Violation of Petitioners
Fifth and Sixth Amendments to effective Counseling Under
Strickland v. Washington 466 U.S 668, 688, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2055,
2063(1984)?

hether a Motion brought Under 28 U.S.c S 2255 Should be
nsidered as a Civil or Criminal Proceeding forthe sole Purpose
quirements on appearance of Counsel, base on local District Court
les, and Federal Rules of Gril Procedure?

ether the appearance of Counsel rule was Violated when habeas
nsel was neither a member of the bar of the Court and was
admitted as Pro Hac Vice as the Rule States;28 U.S.c S 515
L.R 112.3?

ther the Inconsistency of applying a Post-Sentence amendment
larfing in the lower courts Should be reviewed when thers
Claifying amendment that is not listed in U.S.S.G. S.
-Sentence
10@d)?

Whether an Omission by habeas Counsel to include a Supporting fact that Appellate Counsel was Ineffective