Did the Fourth Circuit err in deferring to the District Court's finding that the Petitioner was not prejudiced by his defense counsel's failure to recall a witness who would have impeached the State's identification evidence?

Petitioner alleged that his defense counsel was ineffective by failing to recall a witness to cross-examine her about an exculpatory text message to him, which stated at the victim told her "blacked out dont remember what happened, didnt even see a face." The witness also would have testified that there were other culprits shooting at her house, and in her yard saying, "when we see him (victim), its a war." In finding no prejudice, the District Court stated in its opinion that the text messages were "hearsay," and its "doubtfully a statement that Mr. Smith made to the like; the Fourth Circuit stated in its opinion denying the (cod), that the petitioner "did not make a requisite showing."

Did the Fourth Circuit err in deferring the lower courts' findings that the Petitioner was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing?

Petitioner alleged that the Fourth Circuit and the lower courts failed to consider his aide, appellate counsel's affidavit, and defense counsel's affidavit, which was necessary to resolve factual disputes. The Fourth Circuit relied upon the lower court's statement that the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel lack merit when he made a prima facie showing by affidavits that he was entitled to hearing on the Petition.

Did the Fourth Circuit err in deferring to the District Court's finding that the petitioner was not prejudiced by trial counsel's failure to file his motion to suppress the identification of the Smith?

Petitioner alleged that his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to file his motion to suppress the Smith's identification of him. The Smith and his cousin, Mr. Corer gave conflicting accounts about what transpired on the night of the incident. The District Court stated "Counsel cannot be faulted for not withdrawing Book's motion to suppress." In finding no prejudice, the Fourth Circuit stated that the petitioner had not made a requisite showing of a denial of a constitutional right.

Did the Fourth Circuit err in deferring to the lower courts' finding that the petitioner did not show cause or prejudice for his procedural default?

Did the Fourth Circuit and the lower court's ignore the petitioner's gateway claim?

Petitioner alleged that his defense counsel, the Judge and Prosecutor misled him to believe that his ineffective assistance of counsel claims was an "appeal" issue and not a "habeas" issue so he omitted the claims from his initial habeas corpus Petition to the Circuit Court. Petitioner had requested his appellate counsel to include them in his direct appeal. She responded in a letter, "the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not cognizable on direct appeal." In finding no cause or prejudice, the Fourth Circuit relied on the lower Court's decision without pursuing the amended petition presented showing cause for his procedural default.

Did the Fourth Circuit err in failing to the District Court's findings that the petitioner was not prejudiced by his defense counsel's failure to file to cite the sufficiency of evidence?

Petitioner alleged that his defense counsel was ineffective for failure to make a motion to cite the sufficiency of evidence destroyed his chances to appeal issues at trial. Petitioner was convicted in large part upon the unreliable estimate and misidentification of the witness, who was high of cocaine and other intoxicated at time of the offense. In finding no prejudice, the Fourth Circuit relied on the District Court's statement in their opinion denying relief, that "Counsel was not deficient for failing

Did the Fourth Circuit err in deferring to the lower courts' findings that the petitioner was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing or relief on his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel