Was counsel ineffective in not using compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in the movant's favor?

QUESTION PRESENTED i 2 -Since at least 1975, this:Court has recognized that a : | 3 defendant is entitled to his Six Amendment rights, shall 4 have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his 5 favor, and shall have the assistance of counsel for his 6 defense . Farretta v. California, 95 S ct 2525, 45 LED2D 562 7 422 US 806 (1975). In 1984, this Court held that counsel who 8 was not functioning as the counsel guranteed by Sixth 9 Amendment was not providing reasonable effective assistance, 101] Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S 668, 80. LED2 674, 104 Set | aiff 2052 (1984). _ . a . 12h When Orlando Bell attended. his trial, his counsel did 13 refused to call witnesses in his favor. Despite ‘the standard | . i. 44 set by Fagreta and Strickland in the Supreme Court” of-.the . . . / isi United States. D.C Circuit held that Bell's counsel: wasnot: | ) 16 ‘dneffective’ in-violation of movant's Six Amendment right -to . 17) ‘efifective assistance 6f counsel, nor was’ he. entitled’ to. a “18 conflict free counsel where an actual conflict of interest . : 19 adversely affecting lawyer's performance renders assistance . 20 ineffective, Guyler v. Sullivan 446 US, at 344, 641 LED2D a. ‘o1{} 333..100 Sct 1708. a oo ; 22 _ The questions presented: _ ; : ; . 23 1) Was counsel ineffective in not using compulsory process , 24 ‘for ‘obtaining by the United States Park: ; ; 35 Policé and* the. AUSA in the,.movant's favor? , 7 26 2) was movant's trial counsel ineffective in appointing his 27 ‘wife to represent him on appeal ignoring conflict free duties? zie : i ' / ; i . i 1 i.