1. whethes district count failuse to nppoint substitute Counsc to Continve t repcesent Petitonerin the evideatinyharing aftes ceming the assign Counsel from the hearing violate the integsityot hebeas cerpus Proceding Thus cawsing substantialdefect in the habeas Procecding fesuiting in violatinof Petiticnes Un Constidutunal sight, right to Pocdural due Process of law, and to have. the assistane A ceunse far his de ferte under the fifth andsixth Amendient.

2. whcther sr not district coort wielate 28U.s c 636 whenit rejected the Creditability findings enter by magistratidudge aftee the eviskntuy heaihy and mode suct a erroneous Rulin witteut thc a ppaintincnt f ceunsd o sepiesent. Petiton rior to the court ruling: bitioner ws un sepresented anddefenscless, and denied the opertunity t fike a written dbjection in response mogostrite dude sepert and seconmendation: Thes did the district counterr in failig to condut denis Evidentay haring depive letitionce of the Piedusal Proccss to which wAs his due entitheincnt onder federal Constitutunal law: fifth And sixth Amend meat.

3. whether or not did districtCoust viclate etitionce Constittunal right when it denied Petituncs motion requesting the Appaintincnt of Caunsel te. his defens. to Reqiesent Petitince in the habeas Carpus Pioccding

4. whethcr ou not district court vokite the Pioceduel sequirernents set fosth in Section 18 Vs.e Boo6 Rukes seuited in violton f Rettuner Constituta right right to Counsel, a right to tair and dust hearing

5. whether scasenabk durist coold debate and disagiec thet the fodeiad district Courtwas Unreasonable in dekriing whetrer district Caurt violated Petituner redeal Constititunal right by its FAilore o Aoint Susttut Counsel As mndated cnd squived undes i8US 3006 Proodval Ruk(C)

Whether the district court violated petitioner's constitutional rights by failing to appoint substitute counsel to continue representing him in the habeas corpus proceedings after his original counsel withdrew