QUESTION # ONE: Whether Petitioner Gibson's counsel provided him with ineffective assistance of counsel by failing; to effectively investiga te his HYTA dismissed and expunged charge via MCL § 762.11 and not objecting to the assignment of being assessed 1-Criminal History Poi nt, however when under Michigan Law it does not constitute a convicti on of a crime, thus did counsel violate his Sixth Amendment Rights of the U.S. Constitution ?.

QUESTION # TWO ; Did Petitioner Gibson's counsel provide him with ineffective assistance of counsel during the sentencing phase by failing to object to Gibson's Supervisory Role Adjustment via .§ 3B1. 1 as part of the jdrug conspiracy, therefore did counsel violate his Sixth Amendment Rights of the U.S. Constitution ?

QUESTION # THREE:Whether Petitioner Gibson's counsel rendered ine- ffective assistance of counsel by failing to advise him of his Spe edy Trial Rights and failing to seek dismissal of the Indictment on the ground that he was deprived of his right to a Speedy Trial via 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (c) (1), thus did counsel violate his Sixth Amendme nt Rights of the U.S. Constitution ?

Whether Petitioner Gibson's counsel provided him with ineffective assistance of counsel