Did the lower courts err in conflating Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, thereby denying both due process and effective assistance of counsel, when the district court relied on speculative conclusions to impose an upward variance?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Did the lower courts err in conflating Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, thereby denying both due process and effective assistance of counsel, when the district court relied on speculative conclusions to impose an upward variance, impacting the fairness of the trial and quality of legal representation? 2. Did Mr. Peterson's counsel provide ineffective assistance in violating the Sixth Amendment by failing to adequately challenge the speculative basis for the upward variance in sentencing, resulting in a sentence based on unreliable and unsupported evidence? 3. Did the district court contravene established legal principles by imposing an upward variance in sentencing based on speculative conclusions regarding the death of Ms. Rosie and other potential overdoses, thereby violating the requirement that sentences be grounded in reliable and accurate information? 4. Did the district court err in denying an evidentiary hearing on Mr. Peterson's § 2255 motion, thus depriving him of a meaningful opportunity to present his claims and resolve factual disputes, as established in Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487 (1962)? ii