Ineffective-assistance-of-counsel

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED | QUESTION NUMBER ONE: Whether Petitioner Pettway's ex-lawyer provided him with ineffectivé assistance of counsel by failing to object to. Rule 11 (b) (1) (G) violation, thus, actual prejudice exist in violation of Pettway's Sixth Amendment Rights of the U.S. Constitution, moreover; should the U.S. Supreme Court issue a Certificate of Appealability in the case herein ? QUESTION NUMBER TWO: Whether there were an "insufficient factual basis" to accept guilty plea on June 27, 2018, thus, was his ex-lawyer's failure to object to such Rule 11 (b) (3) violation, therefore, rendering his guilty plea involuntary of Pettway's Due Process Clause Rights and actual prejudice exist violating his Sixth Amendment Rights of the U.S. Constitution in the matter herein ? : QUESTION NUMBER THREE: , . Whether Petitioner Pettway's ex-lawyer provided him with ineffective assistance of counsel as to Count Five the Section 924 (c) (1) count by failing to file a pre-trial Motion to Dismiss Defective Indictment in which fails to state an offense, thus, does actual prejudice exist in violation of Pettway's Sixth Amendment ’ Rights of the U.S. Constitution in the case at bar ? QUESTION NUMBER FOUR: . Whether Petitioner Pettway's ex-lawyer Attorney Cripps provided him with ineffective assistance of counsel by failing ’ to consult with him about filing an Notice of Appeal after his . federal sentencing, thus, absent his ex-lawyer's failure,to consult ' he would have instructed Attorney Cripps to file a Notice of Appeal, therefore, was Michael J. Pettway's Sixth Amendment Rights violated in the situation herein ? . : .