Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding trial counsel's representation ineffective based on failure to call alibi witnesses and impeach government witnesses

IDID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR WHEN IT DID NOT FIND TRIAL COUNSELS REPRESENTATION OF MR. SHAW INEFFECTIVE BASED ON HIS FAILURE TO CALL ALIBI WITNESSESS ON MR. SHAW'S BEHALF? 2iDID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR WHEN IT DID NOT FIND TRIAL COUNSEL'S REPRESENTATION OF MR. SHAW INEFFECTIVE BASED ON HIS FAILURE TO IMPEACH ESSENTIAL GOVERNMENT WITNESSES? 3. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR IN FINDING TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO CALL ALIBI WITNESSES OR IMPEACH GOVERNMENT WITNESSES PRUDENT TRIAL STRATEGY? 4. PETITIONER REQUEST IN LIGHT OF SUPREME COURT RULING'S IN GLOSSIP V. OKLAHOMA AND ANDREW V. WHITE TO GVR AS THE LOWER COURT OF APPEALS ERRED BY NOT EVEN ADDRESSING NAPUE V. ILLINOIS VIOLATION WHEN EVIDENCE STEMMED FROM PERJURED TESTIMONY. 5. PETITIONER REQUEST IN LIGHT OF SUPREME COURT RULING'S IN GLOSSIP V. OKLAHOMA AND ANDREW V. WHITE TO GVR AS THE LOWER COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT ADDRESS TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE OR THE EXCEEDING IT'S AUTHORITY DOWN BELOW AT ALL THAT WAS ABUSE OF DISCRETION. 1