Whether the state court unreasonably determined that Lester S. Barney did not clearly and unequivocally assert his right to proceed pro se

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether, because the state court unreasonably determined that Lester S. Barney (“Barney”) did not clearly and unequivocally assert his right to proceed pro se, on habeas review, the New Jersey District Court and the Third Circuit, on appeal therefrom, misapprehended and misapplied this Court’s jurisprudence under both Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1974) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2254(d), and reached a decision in conflict with this Court’s precedent. 2. Whether, because in evaluating Barney’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim on habeas review, the New Jersey District Court and the Third Circuit, on appeal therefrom, misapprehended and misapplied this Court’s jurisprudence under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984), and Weaver v. Massachusetts, 582 US. _, 137 S. Ct. 1899 (2017), as well as Title 28, United States Code, Section 2254(d), the decisions below are in conflict with this Court’s precedent.