Whether the District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's rejection of Petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim(s) were contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of Strickland and Cronic [infra], and there progenies in light of the evidence of Sixth Amendment violation(s) presented during court proceedings?

Whether due process of the Fifth Amendment was violated when the District Court denied a pro se habeas Petitioner a fair opportunity to obtain viable discoverable material of his case in order to prove an actual conflict of interest that concerned a prior romantic relationship between defense counsel and the prosecutor, and would that further violate the Sixth Amendment?

Whether this case requires a remand back to the lower Court(s) in the interest of justice when the record demonstrates an overriding need for national uniformity of Federal Law in conjunction with the Supreme Court and other U.S. Court of Appeal(s) legal precedents to the cause and prejudice standard of the Sixth Amendment guarantee, specifically when counsel was absent at a critical stage of the criminal proceedings, allowing the Magistrate Judge to impermissibly participate in plea negotiations, and did that violate Rule 11 of the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure?

Whether the District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's rejection of Petitioner's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim(s) were contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of Strickland-and-Cronic and their progenies in light of the evidence of Sixth-Amendment violations during court proceedings?