Whether the Court of Appeals failed to properly consider or address the Court's abuse of discretion

No question identified. : ) WHHEL U.S. Covet oo en. tn SN SS Me eT natn ectect DES r5svateo Vi cledderJ ) UyeTtHhen cont of Appeal s Fail To. PMopttly ComSLOr Or stead Covel AQUSE OT CTseewe (3 WeThe_ Cott _OF Aeppeacs RECowreo THE lauds OF ttFectIve ASSLTAMCE =P counsel TW Coun SEX Sugpren etal. IEF ? . . ; Cu) LS eTHER COT oS Agents Yoo Nottce ot jover. Coutts “mitral e Ackecentes to Covrnsiors tack “oF QEET For THe LAW GS Mee Trevis “AR Counsel AC CLES PRO Less BENIGY {Har UE GoUCONTh® 9 Cx) UyetHet ovat of AgeeAc> APPLIC Pistatcr Court FoORGEMmEenT OLE TS Ceonselr StaAvA , Eneetectsuc ASSISTANCE B PTL Cele SDVO TO CLLE Amoees QOree Teoseite oF Dow ERIVZ lo § wssu &$ ker CLEA yrolat co PCTETIONER> REGHTS ? (ce) peTHeL cot AgPEAc> Decregzor To Reeser WAS GASES ON EVETEECT FUE ASSTSTARCE OT Course — . Becavse Apper| Covel STANCE (or P56 OF On PLBITSHED eptvzer ) [Mave Failed To SusSTSHy fe CHO Fee RESENTEvary WHEY Hedi Mt eae La that HE VovlO Recieved © [gwer SerAenoe Map Mot +e _ Qaestions . Was Public Defender Robert Brodey ineffective by | not objecting to Policy Statement © ZL. Was Public Debender Robert Brodey inefrective b y misguicled advice. to oletendant ty take. a | Plea deal thet was offered using an improperly Calculated guikeline policy Statement ? 3. Was Public Defender Robect BrodeyweF fective b vo not allowing detendant to update pre-Sentencing report ? | | Hy. Was Public Detender Robert Brodey merFective | b y not objecting -fo in formation into Q pending investigat ion to be used ina bonk hearing ‘4 , 5. Was P. ublic Defender Ro bect Bodey mebective by failing to re Quire notice. of APA a Variant Deportur 2 for Sentencing guideline for Grate 5 violation pursucit to USS & 7h. 4? G, Was Public Defender Robert Brodey inertective . by not bringing PD the. Courts attention the dlelendant was rot given an initial hearing 7 | vA Was Public Defender Robert Broke. 4 metbective by not adopting dele ndonts Writ o€ Habeas Corpus ° 5. Was Appellant lawyer Brian Aas metCective i'n his prejudice by Fil Ing aa Anders Brie€ 2 G Was Appellant lawyer Brian Aus ine€Fective by the U.S. Coact of Appeals order to address a nontrivolous issde. That woah benefit From adversarial presentation the Appeals Court 10. Was Appellant law yer Brian Aas inetFective by fot acguing the District Courts maltiple references to feterdants lack o€ respect Far fhe lau) 7 |. Was Appellant Jaw) yer Brian Aus ine€Fective by tell. ing deFendant that he would have to Proceed PRO SEwith his KS. Supreme Court Certioraci °