1. Was the Sixth Circuit decision based on an unreasonable determination
of the facts in light of the Evidance presented in the state court
proceeding i.e holding that trial counsel was not ineffective for not
raising a meritless defense, directly related, on the Erroneous claim
that defendants medication warning labels warned him of intoxication
or impairment.

2. Did the lower court Attempt to leverage their opinion to deny petitioners direct Appeal claim of Ineffective Assisstance of counsel by predeter-
minig the'use of A 404(b) prior bad Act usage by circumventing the trial
Judge decision making authority, in Administering judgement whether
to allow or disallow the use of prtitioners 30 year old prior bad acts,
and for what purpose these priors were to be used, would it be considered
a seperation of power in doing so.

3. did the Sixth Circuit err in adopting and confirming the mich Attorney
Generals Agument supporting the opinion and judgement of the (MCA$)
denial of Appeallees claim of Ineff. Assis. of counsel based on an
Erroneous inclusion of the prosecutions assumption of warnings supposedly
contained in the Labels, without a thread of evidance.

Was the Sixth Circuit decision based on an unreasonable determination of the facts