Vargas

MEMORANDUM *

Jason Martinez Vargas (“Vargas”) appeals from the district court’s denial of his *658 petition for habeas corpus filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2254 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. Reviewing de novo, see Shackleford v. Hubbard, 234 F.3d 1072, 1077 (9th Cir.2000), we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for an evidentiary hearing.

Vargas argues that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel, in violation of the Sixth Amendment, as a result of his trial counsel’s sleeping during a substantial portion of the trial. Vargas alleges facts that, if true, may amount to a violation of his right to the effective assistance of counsel. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 680-96 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 659-60 , 104 S.Ct. 2039 , 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984). Respondent Pliler asks us to assume that counsel was asleep — for how long or through what portion of the trial, we do not know — but to conclude nevertheless that Vargas suffered no prejudice. Such an assumption would force us to engage in a series of speculations to answer a serious question about an important constitutional…