Whether the district court deprived the defendant of her Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying her ineffective assistance of counsel claim due to the attorney's failure to argue nexus, resulting in a violation without further review or an evidentiary hearing

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED DE rL GePriving the defendant of her Sih and GN Arendment on ofthe fay Whe dichet court Cenying her nelfecue, nounien , Claim due +o the otrorney's Fei luneo argue nex Rt aato “— Violation withostucther reine or Oun Avi dantony heaning 2 2.) Cant rb depriving She defendant of her ih ond next nignts loy She district courts Failure to cal volheeote, et Further review ore dentaary hearing 2 D ASN re videtion of dhe cehfavtants Ei ) o Bh thy , igste -for She. Biche Courts deny her Clow ep jreedroeske a eree for anoreg Mute Van ances een the irelied oo eviderce. Produced ot-tnal Shak her attomey eNher failac chal lange ox didnt, challenge in a. timnel e NDoessb it deat Shee 1 deprive defendant of her Bin *h Arend Nahts fa dhe di striet court +e fail to sulo at GP Deaeert YRCKAS a7 Shou ethikti 40 Orve wh ve ae Pasko od hush meee eS LORY Whe meaney hurclering 6, Docent it yi olake Yhe eo rights by rece “ing Qcnd ode = her MP endmerk, Rind te offender 2 ray Camlence. being an |