Petitioner presents the question whether his 'trial counsel provided ineffective .assistance of: counsel as required by 'the Sixth Amendment to' the Constitutibn where trial counsel permitted the District Court to subject petitioner to a career offender enhancement, USSG §4B1.1, without haying any transcripts of petitioner's 'alleged prior, state convictions?

Petitioner contends that the state law convictions were entered in violation of due process of law; and also contends' that this Court's decision in Strickland v. Washington, U.S. , ( ) was inappropriately applied by the Court of Appeals leading'to an unreasonable result.

Had the 'Court . of Appeals correctly applied well-settled precedent -the district court's career offender enhancement; §4B1.1, would ' have been , overturned and petitioner's sentence reduced.

Petitioner's argument is that his trial counsel's professional performance was severely below the standard of a competent lawyer by ,not effectively challenging • application of the . §4B1.1 career offender' enhancement; and petitioner suffered, and continues to suffer' prejudice resulting 'from' trial counsel's unconstitutional negligence.

Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel as required by the Sixth Amendment