Whether the Fourth Circuit's judicial precedence of not reviewing multiple ineffective assistance of counsel claims for the cumulative effect and aggregate prejudice upon a petitioner's trial violate his due process guarantee?

No question identified. : | , eee r _ Queshions Presented | : . : | the Fourth Ciecuits judicial precedence of not Iceviewing multiple ineffective assistance of counsel _ claims Sor the cumulative effect ond oggcegabe prejudice upon o petitioner's trial viplaive of his | bue Process guacantee ? Ts the Fourth Circuits | pcecedence Contrary to Strichland v. Washingbon , __ | loo US 88.(1984) and the Sixth Amendment ? | | las Defendant unconstitubionally convicted | whereby Mlieginia's Concect of actionducy insrcuetion — __ li mposes 6. Mandatory Presumption of INTENT upon _ | the quey., thus telinguishing the Prosecutions “production | and persuasion of the essential element of the charge? | aa I wt OL Cal? . Contents Page Motion For Leave To Proceed. inftrma. pauperis | Coplinn ofthe Case | Suestints feesenbed ———_—_f_ Table of Conten Ie = trdey of Appendices iii Hable of Audocities ey ___[eitations of Opinions and Ocde yi — fetta | onstitubional Provisions, Statutes , A Stwhement of the cage ,facts matecial == | Acgument : Questing 1 Summacy a _ Acqument : Question 2 Sun moc y BS | Question 1 Argument _ Question 2 Argument | O nelugiogn CA poectibicae_snde Rule 29 po | _Appendices [ns Ch af Bppenls 08, denled —_ | B: US pict ch ORDER Habeas $4954 Dismissed i a | C2 Supceme Ch of Vieginia shite habeas tevin | lb : Cicauik Ch, Nieginia Beach ORDER sttehabeas 1 Litenay Gene Rei Suunto Bul § fier —§ Te: Direct Appeal, ch of Appeals of Vieginia | Direct Appeal, Sch of Va. | a