0 \aJ lAfcl'V' ^A< waT kiiowt'ftql WT o/vift13
5 of 4W cU (A 21
j£L4/>n

2) uiWt hXvX4
't'n'ai onA /
-h> j'
Ckimi
; _^'L IrtdicJ/Ht/tf,i/igfec4lV^ CLS5fsf-«n6^
^ b^oxuix. Uis or a°dfarMJfj
'fl USMliai d^W jr\SLb\losr ck cn'is^in
fn UrttL dnocoA &r a L.) iConduct dFd

j) Uj hfc-fkiU b^Wlcvirk cm\/itkion mf/ikc i
ntrn •
V$LC4 &X/4L. 6'
! 5$ i/IinhnoJna, Isuuvi,
&majqqmj
'n£j b ^causJL. cf -HrJLk.
M me cio<*(W conduct.

Whether defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel