DID THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ERRONEOUSLY DENY PETITIONERS HABEAS CORPUS PETITION BECAUSE OF PROCEDURAL DEFAULT WITHOUT REVIEWING THE RECORD AS WELL AS BASING ITS DECISION ON THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS FINDINGS IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

DID THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ERRONEOUSLY DENY PETITIONERS HABEAS CORPUS PETITION BECAUSE OF PROCEDURAL DEFAULT WITHOUT REVIEWING THE RECORD AS WELL AS BASING ITS DECISION ON THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS FINDINGS WITHOUT REVIEW THESE ARGUMENT ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

DID THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ERRONEOUSLY DENIED PETITIONER INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL PETITION WITHOUT REVIEWING THE RECORD OF THE CASE WHERE PETITIONER WAS CHARGED WITH ROBBERY IN THE FIRST-DEGREE UNDER KENTUCKY REVISED STATUTE (KRS) 515.020. PRIOR TO TRIAL, COUNSEL WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AND SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AND; CLEARLY ESTABLISHED FEDERAL LAW, AS DETERMINED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE STRICKLAND STANDARD.

Did the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit erroneously deny petitioner's habeas corpus petition by procedural default without reviewing the record and district court findings in violation of constitutional rights?