PeTitione to be impeached with four contictions in lightof the facts festified that only two Convictions Would be alloved for inmpeachant and in light of the foot The stote could not prove the two 1999 prior Convictions?

Did officer Tintele's denial to Confact and Consulf with attorney violate mr. Ranirez's conctitutional right f gaths as independant evidence exolpating him on the issve of intorication, evidence no longer available?

Did the tria/ Courf abose i ts discretion whenit rked mnRamire waived his right to consult with an attomey whin he refuses to fake additional. testing for Police an "emreasonable- -defermination," in light of the facf thot Patitioner hos a constitotionn/right under the sirth and fourteenth Amendments to Charge Counsel during DuI. preinves tigation P

Did the triel Courts denial of on evidential hearing constitute a de fect that fundomentally undermine The reliabi%ity and fairnes of the process that violated Mr.Raminez's constitotiona/ right to a "foir trial in fair tribunal" in light of the factiThe tyre test is "Contraryto" Supreme Court precelent C

Whether the federal court erred in denying petitioner's constitutional challenge to the impeachment process