(1) Whether the district courts denial of relief and determination
of whether a breakdown in the adversarial process was created
by the trial courts denial of defense counsels motion for
continuance, resulted from the district courts' incorrect
interpretation of 'Assistance' as set forth in the right
to effective Assistance of Counsel guaranteed by the Sixth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

(2) Whether the district counts denial of relief and determination,
of whether defense counsel was either constructively-ineffective
or constitutionally-ineffective for failing to investigate the
defendants brain injury and craniotomy, resulted from the
district courts incorrect interpretation of 'Assistance' as
set forth in the right to effective Assistance of Counsel
guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

(3) Whether the district courts' incorrect interpretation of
'Assistance' as set forth in the right to effective Assistance
of Counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution effectively sanctioned the state-courts'
objectively unreasonable application of Federal law as
set forth within U.S. V. Cronic , Strickland V. Washington ,
Wiggins V. Smith , and Brecht V. Abrahamson ?

Whether the district court's denial of relief and determination resulted from the incorrect interpretation of 'Assistance' under the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel