1. On habeas corpus revi ew of a state-court judgment under 28
U.S.C . § 2254, di d the Di strict Court fai l to uphol d peti tioner's Si xth
Amendment ri ght to the effecti ve assi stance of counsel , where tri al
counsel failed to make a moti on to suppress evi dence of peti tioner's
confessi on, obtai ned duri ng an i nterrogati on fol lowing hi s arrest,
in violation of hi s Fourth Amendment ri ght to be brought before a
magi strate for a determi nation of probabl e cause for arrest wi thout
unreasonabl e del ay, as req uired by C ounty of Ri versi de v.
McLaughl in, 500 U.S. 44 (1991) , and the Di strict Judge found that
such Fourth Amendment ri ght was "cl early violated" but that statecourt juri sts mi ght reasonabl y have found that such Si xth
Amendment ri ght was not vi olated because counsel might have
believed that the tri al court might have denied it , finding that such
Fourth Amendment ri ght was not vi olated because there was
probabl e cause to arrest peti tioner for the cri me to whi ch he
confessed, whereas the true test i s whether reasonabl y competent
counsel woul d make a moti on that there was a reasonabl e
probabi lity would be granted , as the Di strict Judge found i t shoul d
have been?

2. Whether the Di strict Court vi olated peti tioner's Fi fth
Amendment ri ght to due process of l aw when the respondent
Warden di d not argue i n the state courts that there was probabl e
cause to arrest peti tioner, based on an eyewi tness's descri ption of a
shooter, but made that argument for the fi rst ti me i n the Di strict
Court, and the Di strict Court deni ed peti tioner's req uest to expand
the record to i nclude evi dence, whi ch he had no reason to present i n
the state courts, that not onl y did the eyewi tness's descri ption not
match peti tioner's appearance but al so the wi tness fai led to i denti fy
his photograph i n photo l ineups?

3. Whether the panel of the Ni nth C ircuit Court of Appeal s
failed to uphol d peti tioner's Si xth Amendment ri ght to the effecti ve
assistance of counsel where counsel failed to make a moti on to
suppress evi dence on meri torious McLaughl in grounds, by rul ing
that cl early establ ished Uni ted States Supreme C ourt l aw does not
require suppressi on for a McLaughl in violation (i.e., a federal court
woul d not necessari ly suppress the evi dence), even though California
law does require suppression (i.e., the state court woul d suppress the
evidence), thereby treati ng peti tioner's Si xth Amendment cl aim as
though i t were a Fourth Amendment cl aim?

4. Whether the Ni nth C ircuit panel violated peti tioner's Fi fth
Amendment due process ri ghts by setti ng the appeal for oral
argument and then deemi ng oral

Whether petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was violated