Whether the district court and Ninth Circuit abused discretion in holding an actual-innocence claim procedurally defaulted and conflicting with Supreme Court precedent on ineffective assistance of counsel and Sixth Amendment rights

QUESTON NUMBER ONE; Whether the district court and the Ninth Circuit abused its discretion by holding that Ground One, actual-innocence claim as to his Count Three, Possession of a Firearm in Furtherance of Drug Trafficking Crime was procedurally defaulted by failing to raise issue on direct appeal, thus, a COA should issue as the district court's holdings and the Ninth Circuit's affirmance conflicts with U.S. Supreme Court precedents in Dugger v. Adams, 489 U.S. at 401, 411 n. 6 (1989); and Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. 478, 496 (1986) ? QUESTION NUMBER TWO: Whether the district court abused its discretion by failing to conduct an Evidentiary Hearing and the Ninth Circuit affirmance of that decision regarding Ground Two, ineffective assistance of counsel whether Count One, Conspiracy was fatally defective and his former attorney should have filed a pre-trial Motion to Dismiss Fatally Defective Indictment, thus, did this violate his Sixth Amendment rights ? QUESTION NUMBER THREE: Whether the district court abused its discretion by failing to conduct an Evidentiary Hearing and the Ninth Circuit affirmance of that decision regarding Ground Three, sentencing phase ineffective assistance of counsel, thus, did this violate his Sixth Amendment rights of the U.S. Constitution ? QUESTION NUMBER FOUR; Whether the district court abused its discretion by failing to conduct an Evidentiary Hearing and the Ninth Circuit's affirmance of that decision regarding Ground Four, pre-plea ineffective assistance of counsel, thus, did this violate his Sixth Amendment rights of the U.S. Constitution ?