Did the District Court's sua sponte denial of Petitioner's habeas petition alleging ineffectiveness of trial counsel violate habeas procedural law?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Did the District Court’s swa sponte denial of Petitioner’s habeas petition alleging ineffectiveness of trial counsel filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 violate habeas procedural law when it dismissed the proceeding without prior notice (and without a hearing) to the Petitioner, where no opposition was filed, and by failing to review the facts in the light most favorable to Petitioner? 2. Was Petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel to seek the trial judge’s recusal at his retrial after the District Judge disclosed a close personal relationship with a former employee of the hedge fund which defrauded the municipal labor union which Petitioner led denied? 3. Did the District Court err in denying Petitioner’s Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 33 motion without a hearing? u PARTIES TO PROCEEDING AND RELATED CASES The parties to this proceeding are the United States of America and Norman Seabrook. ¢ United States v. Seabrook, No. 16-cr-467, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Judgment entered Aug. 15, 2018. ¢ United States v. Seabrook, No. 19-436, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Decision entered Aug. 4, 2020. ¢ United States v. Seabrook, No. 21-cv-8767, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Order entered Aug. 10, 2022. ¢ Seabrook v. United States, No. 22-841, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Order denying rehearing en banc entered Dec. 7, 2023. ¢ Seabrook v. United States, No. 22-841, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Summary order entered Nov. 13, 2023.