Does Counsels failure to on the record
d the pee and pos-V infLannc^bf>£-Cs dor the petitioners
ike specific objections todbe report and reccommendqt
t a rna^is-WaAe.'Sodt^e- and identity wba4 portion otihe record
in wb»cK petitioner objects , and not object in a-footnote
V JJ • A vsWUnc^ " Same oralar^ements ftS , enough do satisdij Cause and |>rejoice;
\n an »n\dial revived Collateral pf0ceed\o<j ^^rsaand* toj^ar.tinei^ Rcjan Sci r
tb\}<j at dteV»o^ \\\t mtey>tij °t the proceedings poesentel0 C^pan
arjufloenls an
an d rn c\ ions

Does Counsel's failure to expand on the record and file pre and post hearing briefs for the petitioner's arguments, and make specific objections to the report and recommendations of a Magistrate Judge and identify what portion of the record in which petitioner objects and not object in a footnote stating, 'Same oral arguments as,' enough to satisfy cause and prejudice, in an initial review collateral proceeding pursuant to Martinez v. Ryan?