In Ghaidez V United kStages. 56B U . S . 342( 2023 ) this court decided that
Padilla V Kentucky , dis not apply retroactive and announced a new
rule. This decision brings up a question of a constitutional magnitude
as to determine whether the ruling by this court deprive certain
people of the right to equal nprotection, by allowing a defense counsel
to withhold a vital fact surrounding a plea bargain to a certain
group of people, which is a direct denial of a constitutional right
to effective assistance of counsel, when the Sixth Amendment as well
as Strtickland V Washington , existed at the time this court decided
Padilla,' which now brings to question before thfegcourt.

At the time of the plea proceeding did petitioner have protection
of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause,
he not entitled to it because of his nationality which deprives
his of the same right as other defendants during his plea bargain
proceeding?or was

Whether the ruling in Ghaidez V United States deprives certain people of the right to equal protection by allowing defense counsel to withhold a vital fact surrounding a plea bargain