Whether an appeal brought under 28 U.S.C. 2255 is subject to the avenue of relief granted when an appellate court fails to adequately resolve ineffective-assistance-of-counsel issues underlying a request for rehearing that continue to appear effective on appeal

No question identified. : . Louestionl MmESESTED Does Av Appeal Brouglt bbe 2 USL. 48S) Asgoccte To bbhet Avenue O Kehef Grits ldhen Aa Mypellole Cot Fauls Ta Adequetely lesolve Lupertiod: ty Issues, Undeyurg Mequest far flecuse{, thot Cntiwe To Hyrear Afechre Comert Waters © La View Lanpartiod ty Coss: Oo Wis represecdoters Weke Bol. the District Curt Prb Govenmert Weletot To Hea — Corsidevotive, S Inlet The tasers Of Prcedings thet A Duo © Awe Violation Should Ge Enfewed, Ierkey & Alea Tnvelortey _h A Case. there Prin Bueshivable Convictions — Have Gre. Uncoviected , Pes Due brceess Ob lige A Cut Te Mssess Cle Lorsideotin Of A Cunerd Corshtatiined Unsia In he Ebosequeet Does A Due Press Veletin Savy Unley A Curk Galore To To Ce-appomt Counsel © Teble G Contots Quectins presented () Table fp Cnterk ((i,ai, iv) flelotekh Coses | () Table # M-bherifies (v,vi) Corsh thicrel avel Stotactery [roustas (vii) DL. STHEMENT v€ Tl CASE | TD. (EASoAS Fett Geantine THE bye A. Kypllete Cowl Use of Mertebe ede £1915) bles Leyraper . Crectiry AA Due (cess Challerge (. Aypesl freserté fhisss ble hegal Coebusin Ln flaguest fe Hare (fosss bu Ts by of Luparticls ty 8 A. Fale fhe Cruel Gthe becork tt @) Lourts fre-frrdl Stefemut bbs Dipriper i () Gut fened & Should Hyve linen Stetemerd tiles bole a ii) Queshinable View G Shed pttoruys B til) Laud Lawporyarvtty bes Alot Haru less 3 b) Court Unlikely Te Inpuym L& ban Standards tban feessyned Mt Dsl To the Coe (i) 6) Gourd vied Posed Upur Miipereeptan Wes Hrejudeceal (6 /) Prejudice Kesulted ib a) AHerneq Pebovwrapce Verbks L Factnel ests lb 5. Use of S456) Cranes A Sirifhiant Dee Grrcess Challerge 6. Ayptlete Lurk Guled To Arkequately fhesolve Mecusel Legue (het Combaues To Afet (iv4eehieg beawiry Pebbiney Mle Avenue fev Leliek . (9 |. Recent Dishict Lurk tlehin Voies Pal hivaf Queshive OL buypertioi ty, Establishing AA Due fiuess Clatlege ‘4 hgeoirs baceeduigs. 4 A) Wether Saluited Under $ ISVA Becemnes Subfetel Te Lagparteslily Crcens. bY Bay Fdury Dewors tater Due frecess dnyalicatiorg 4 ') Kuting He Indicetes Substantive Due fhwece Vislebar H ES Court ftetin Enbshifed Le Direct (eegoorse To SKED WMehen Eatoslishies A totetih Crbhit df | Reraort Skat Ouvr To flonrte Evalortin. of. wheter 6 Mee Petihiver. Deworstoted A Peutl of A Coshhtinel Kg ht as Gil) 2) Falsiby Estoblishes Wanifest Ear Dn Vie Y Salt Poverdivet Caran | . de 6) Lrehechive sisterce of Kapow tel Longe Ard A Peccston L Deny Peguest To Remove Lovvsel, feesutleh Ta fh Denil GH Cushttrived fegtt Under The SKM Amevrdk ment Pid i) Wikseurr ¥. Frye ad (1) badly v. United Shoes 4f D. Exta -Olelcinay Cvcuus bapees Aeserfed y Tue Crcess brb Zig. Amerdmedt Inplications % E. Lnclusiin to AMENDK SEiomntd C1ecnrlt Ppectsconl Cis4062) Courtice precunte Deusen (1-H) Vavties Tpvelvek WMACCEL Wir Actew Stl . United States of fmeEekics G)) MAteh Cres United Stokes y. Molackowsh, of -ch12s (Tm), non Cea. 4 Jet) Uns fed Stoles v. WMelathenste’ (¢-0J09-CK, Seeorl Crieut Cut Ob Voprert, Todyemert Ebrk (Stpberb 4, Jo) WMclackeuishe’ v. rated Shlis, plo. B= 154, 136 SA ISH Cane 37, 74Ub) Welackouisly vy. Uns fed Stotes, [V1841 NdalY, Tohgemert Ctvedl (Gone il, 9018) WMelschowsle v. Uns teh Stote Walechowsky v. Unitek Shta, [6 -bv-ISH7 farle 6oG), NDWY, Jagenrert Epteveh (Alovewlev (2, 9x4) . Welackouiste y. United Stotes (9-4669 Sreerel Grist Court Of Mppec, Fadgsmert Grtoved (Cchsbes 20, $022) Table & Auterhes . Brady y. Uncted Stetes, HT US, 724, 147 (a7) Godinee v. Wean, S67 AS, 394, doo (1993) Hes'nes v. bevnev, Yt US. Sit, So (1977) Le re Wuebirsn, HF WS, 199, (3 C458) Lil jebueg v teeth Sevries Pguisibins Copo,, UI US. FER, Ft C1798) Wissoun vy. Frye, Ste U.S. 194 (2012) WMetlann v. Kaiksdlson, B17 US. 154, Kho (047) Leteky ve sted Sete, SiO US. Sto, $63 (147%) Merhete laws, VIO US. BG, 325 (1994) or ov. nandee, Sof YS 9c C492) | (v) Maule v. Unitecl Stotes, WE 4s. i Cast) Stactland v. Weshing tar, 4b us. 664, 67 (1992) Tomey v. Obes, 213 US.