Whether petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was violated

Questions Presented 1. On habeas corpus review of a state-court judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, did the District Court fail to uphold petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel, where trial counsel failed to make a motion to suppress evidence of petitioner's confession, obtained during an interrogation following his arrest, in violation of his Fourth Amendment right to be brought before a magistrate for a determination of probable cause for arrest without unreasonable delay, as required by County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991) , and the District Judge found that such Fourth Amendment right was “clearly violated” but that statecourt jurists might reasonably have found that such Sixth Amendment right was not violated because counsel might have believed that the trial court might have denied it, finding that such Fourth Amendment right was not violated because there was probable cause to arrest petitioner for the crime to which he confessed, whereas the true test is whether reasonably competent counsel would make a motion that there was a reasonable probability would be granted, as the District Judge found it should have been? i 2. Whether the District Court violated petitioner’s Fifth Amendment right to due process of law when the respondent Warden did not argue in the state courts that there was probable cause to arrest petitioner, based on an eyewitness’s description of a shooter, but made that argument for the first time in the District Court, and the District Court denied petitioner’s request to expand the record to include evidence, which he had no reason to present in the state courts, that not only did the eyewitness’s description not match petitioner’s appearance but also the witness failed to identify his photograph in photo lineups? 3. Whether the panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals failed to uphold petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel where counsel failed to make a motion to suppress evidence on meritorious McLaughlin grounds, by ruling that clearly established United States Supreme Court law does not require suppression for a McLaughlin violation (i.e., a federal court would not necessarily suppress the evidence), even though California law does require suppression (i.e., the state court would suppress the evidence), thereby treating petitioner’s Sixth Amendment claim as though it were a Fourth Amendment claim? ii 4. Whether the Ninth Circuit panel violated petitioner's Fifth Amendment due process rights by setting the appeal for oral argument and then deeming oral argument to be unnecessary, before briefing and the record were complete, thereby apparently deciding the merits of the appeal without considering the Reply Brief and all the evidence?