Whether the district court applied the incorrect prejudice standard in denying relief for ineffective assistance of counsel based on erroneous advice and misrepresentations that led to a no contest plea and life sentence

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ; IL Whether contrary to Lee v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 1958 (2017), the district court applied the incorrect prejudice standard to support its decision to deny Mr. Harding’s claim for relief predicated on his counsel’s ineffective assistance arising from counsel’s erroneous advice, affirmative misrepresentations, false assurances, and concealment of material facts regarding Mr. Harding’s sentencing exposure that ultimately convinced him to forfeit his right to go to trial and to instead plead no contest to the attempted enticement charge that resulted in the imposition of a life sentence. IL. Whether defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by advising Mr. Harding to enter pleas of guilty and no contest to the charges in the second superseding indictment where counsel, the government, and the court agreed during a status conference at which Mr. Harding was not present that his guidelines, even after a plea and a reduction for acceptance of responsibility, would exceed the offense level (level 43) threshold for a guideline-mandatory life imprisonment sentence, where counsel: (a) failed to inform Mr. Harding of what occurred at the status conference; and (b) affirmatively misrepresented to Mr. Harding that a plea would result in lowering his guidelines. . : ‘ PARTIES-:TO. THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW There are no