Was counsel ineffective in violation of the Sixth Amendment for failing to recognize and address the methamphetamine disparity violation committed by the Government and District Court

QUESTIONS PRESENTED . . ; . Was Counsel ineffective in violation of the Sixth Amendment for failing to recognize | and address the methamphetamine disparity violatior committed by the Government and r+ + District Court for the unconstitutional practice of “assuming” a substance can be , : reduced atsent a substantial step taken by the Defendant in reliance on USSG §2D1.1 ‘ ' Notes to Drug Quantity Table "B", and Sentencing a Tefendart to a “type” of drug that was "not specified" in the count of conviction in violation of USSG §2D1/.1 application note 5? : oO Was Ccunsel ineffective for not arguing that USSG §2D1.1(b)(5)(B)'s, “and” Larguage, when given its plain meaning requires at minimum a mitigating, role consideration under §3B1.2 before the applicetion of the importatior enhancement?. Was trial Counsel ineffective for failing to orally address Hamilton's lack of knowledge in relatior to the methamphetamine importation enhancement in USSG §2D1.1(b)(5) when there is a circuit split over said "mens rea”. Ww . i