QUESTION NUMBER ONE:
Whether Petitioner Pettway's ex-lawyer provided him with
ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to object to.Rule
11 (b) (1) (G) violation, thus, actual prejudice exist in viola
tion of Pettway's Sixth Amendment Rights of the U.S. Constitution f
moreover, should the U.S. Supreme Court issue a Certificate of
Appealability in the case herein ?

QUESTION NUMBER TWO:
Whether there were an "insufficient factual basis" to accept
guilty plea on June 27, 2018, thus, was his ex-lawyer's failure to
object to such Rule 11 (b) (3) violation, therefore, rendering his
guilty plea involuntary of Pettway's Due Process Clause Rights and
actual prejudice exist violating his Sixth Amendment Rights of the
U.S. Constitution in the matter herein ?

QUESTION NUMBER THREE:
Whether Petitioner Pettway's ex-lawyer provided him with
ineffective assistance of counsel as to Count Five the Section
924 (c) (1) count by failing to file a pre-trial Motion to Dismiss
Defective Indictment in which fails to state an offense, thus, does
actual prejudice exist in violation of Pettway's Sixth Amendment
Rights of the U.S. Constitution in the case at bar ?

QUESTION NUMBER FOUR :
Whether Petitioner Pettway's ex-lawyer Attorney Cripps
provided him with ineffective assistance of counsel by failing
to consult with him about filing an Notice of Appeal after his
federal sentencing, thus, absent his ex-lawyer's failure^to consult
he would have instructed Attorney Cripps to file a Notice of Appeal,
therefore, was Michael J. Pettway's Sixth Amendment Rights violated
in the situation herein ?

Ineffective-assistance-of-counsel