1. this appl gress of a I A'c claim that had not bee adjdcate by the required well established strickland two plong test leaving dish Pi order non linal and the Cr. of appeals lacking jurisdiction to accept the appeal by ALiv. P Aule 5yll and Usc $129.

2. Was Lover C. Cimen arund plyin this strickand .standard to the I AC claim"reconstrut Cinlumstances and evalvate Rounsels conduct from his pe perspective at the time" 9t b89 104 @ 205d Unconstitutional and veversible

3. Did lower l+ Commit reversiable err, by treatiny the rule bo b)(4) as trve but Failing to address the I AC merits,

Whether the lower court lacked jurisdiction, committing reversible error by entertaining a claim that had not been exhausted by the well-established procedural requirements