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

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED I. Whether an Omission boy habeas Counsel for ailing “to \nclude. O Supporting fact that Apgellate Counsel was Ineffective, after Petia Seca, tqueled 16 ¢ Vilaton of Bettone Fea and Sixth Amendments to effective Counseling Linder Strickland vWashington 466 U-S 66%, 668, 694, Io 9.Ch 2095, 2.063 (1984), a Be Whether a Moeton bhreught Under 2% U-$-c © 2255 Should be Considered aS g Civil or Criminal Proceeding foc Mne_Sdle Cureose. ___ Pequivements on cee rearance of Counsel ase en local, Distick Guct _ Piles, and Federal Rules of Gyi\ Procedure ? , 3. Whelhec the appearance. oF Counsel cule _YDaS Wiolated | when habeas __. Counsel was Neither a member of Ane loac of the Guck oad was. __not admitted as Pro Hac Nice as the Rule StatesdB U-S.c 6 515 ont b-R M23? he Whether Ahe Inconsistency of apelaing a PostSentence. amendment het is Clad Fyas wa Ake lower Coudis Should be reviewed When here is __ Cusceatly o Split in dhe Cicouik Courks on the application OF a Cost echoes Clea fares, ameadment that is vot listed an USS 66 ~ ABI 10): .