1. Whether the district court ruling that Petitioner was not denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel, due process of the law and right to a fair trial under the state and federal constitution since trial counsel failed to provide Petitioner with effective assistance of counsel, when he failed to consult with Petitioner to provide adequate preparation of his defense was indeed contrary to clearly established federal law and united states supreme court precedence under ineffective assistance of counsel violating petitioner's rights under u. S. Const. Amend sixth and fourteenth.

2. Whether district court failure to consider if petitioner's conviction should be vacated because of trial attorney failure to request a jury charge on mistake of the facts and trial counsel's failure to provide adequate legal representation to petitioner when he failed to object to defective an erroneous jury instruction on the charge of possession of a weapon for unlawful purpose, was ineffective assistance of counsel. Counsel's actions were contrary to the United States Supreme Court ruling in Strickland v. Washington and clearly established federal law.

3. Whether the district court erred when it failed to consider if trial and appellate counsels failure to protect petitioner's constitutional rights to due process of law and a fair trial when they failed to challenge and/or argue that petitioner was entitled to a resentencing, this was ineffective assistance of counsels, contrary to clearly established federal law, or an unreasonable application of federal law therefore, a writ should issue.

Whether the district court ruling that Petitioner was not denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel, due process of the law and right to a fair trial