1. Whether, Despite Strickland's Contemporary Assessment Rule, Strickland's Test For Determining Whether A Criminal Defendant's Counsel Was Ineffective Incorporates An Unsettled/Foreshadowed Exception Or Component Into Its IAC Analysis, As Held By The First, Second, Fourth, Sixth, And Seventh Circuits, Or Whether Such A Rule Is Absolutely Barred By Strickland And Its Progeny As Held By The Third, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh and D.C. Circuits?

2. Whether Strickland's Interpretation Of The Sixth Amendment Imposes A General Duty On A Criminal Defendant's Counsel To Anticipate Developments In Law Where (a) The Law In Effect At The Time Of Counsel's Performance Is unsettled In The Circuit Where The Assistance Has Been Rendered, And (b) The development In Law Is Foreshadowed By Decisions In Other Circuits On The Same Issue Of Law?

3. Whether Counsel Was Ineffective For Failing To Secure Vicarious Standing From A Surrendering Country For Purposes Of Objecting To Violations Of An Extradition Agreement Where (a) The Law Of The Eleventh Circuit Was Unsettled On The Issue At The Time Counsel Rendered His Assistance, (b) Other Circuits Had Held Obtaining An Objection From A Surrendering Country Would Bestow A Criminal Defendant With Vicarious Standing To Object To Violations Of An Extradition Agreement To Which He Was Subject To, And (c) The Surrendering Country In This Case Later Lodged Objections With The United States Asserting Violations Of Extradition Agreement Made With The United States With Respect To The Petitioner?

4. Whether, In Light Of Colombia's Protests Asserting That The Eleventh Circuit's Holding Violates The Terms And Conditions Of Its Extradition Agreement In This Case, This Case Presents Questions Of Exceptional Importance Warranting This Court's Review Of The Eleventh Circuit's Judgement Below?

Whether Strickland's test for ineffective assistance of counsel incorporates an unsettled/foreshadowed exception