WHETHER COUNSEL'S INEFFECTIVENESS CONFLICTS WITH THE HOLDING IN MISSOURI v FRYE, FOR FAILING TO ADVISE PETITIONER OF THE MEANS TO SET FORTH IN THE DEATH PENALTY PROTOCOL WHERE THE PLEA AGREEMENT ESSENTIALLY MISTAKEN HIS EXPOSURE TO THE DEATH PENALTY.

WHETHER THE LOWER COURT'S REJECTION OF THE PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR A COA ON HIS CLAIM THAT HIS ATTORNEY LABORED UNDER A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, BASED ON HIS PRIOR REPRESENTATION OF A(N) ALLEGED CO-CONSPIRATOR.

WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT'S EGREGIOUS CONDUCT CONFLICT'S WITH THR HOLDING IN UNITED STATES v BRADY, WHERE PETITIONER WAS MISINFORMED AS TO A CRUCIAL ASPECT OF HIS PLEA.

WHETHER PETITIONER'S SECOND ATTORNEY NON-APPEARANCE DURING PLEA PROCESS WAS EQUIVALENT TO THE CONSTRUCTIVE DENIAL OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL, WHEN THE APPLICATION OF 18 USC § 3005 ENTITLES PETITIONER TO THE ASSISTANCE OF TWO ATTORNEYS UPON INDICTMENT WHERE PETITIONER WAS CHARGED WITH A CAPITAL CRIME?

Whether counsel's ineffectiveness conflicts with the holding in Missouri v. Frye