body of responsive documents. Rugiero also contends that bad faith in the section 2255 proceeding and his criminal trial obligated the district court to conduct an in camera review of the responsive documents. With respect to the section 2255 action, the parties argue whether the government has played a “shell game” by telling Rugiero there that he can obtain documents for the collateral challenge to his conviction in this FOIA action while saying here that he can receive material through discovery in the section 2255 proceeding. Regarding the criminal trial, the parties debate whether the failure to disclose LaRene’s then-impending indictment constituted bad faith. Relying on the line of cases originating in Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 98 S.Ct. 1173, 55 L.Ed.2d 426 (1978) (<HOLDING>), see also Riggs v. United States, 209 F.3d
holding in context of sixth amendment ineffective assistance of counsel based on asserted failure of counsel to file appeal established prejudice per se for purpose of establishing habeas review jurisdiction as if proven such failure constitutes denial of a fundamental constitutional right recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel holding that a conflict of interest independent of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel  constitute cause where the conflict caused the attorney to interfere with the petitioners right to pursue his  1 claim holding that defendants claim for ineffective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest was not cognizable on direct appeal holding that an attorneys conflict of interest gives rise to a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under the sixth amendment and establishes prejudice per se