QUESTION 1:
IS A COA MANDATED IF A PETITIONER DEMONSTRATES
THE STATE ARRIVED AT A DECISION CONTRARY TO AND A UNREASONABLE
APPLICATION OF STRICKLAND AND LAFLER BY ISOLATING A SNIPPET
OF A TRIAL COLLOQUY, ALONE, IN ASSESSING PREJUDICE AGAINST
HIM?
A) IF SO, DOES PETITIONER DESERVE ENCOURAGEMENT TO
PROCEED FURTHER WHEN TRIAL COUNSEL INSTRUCTS HIM TO
REJECT A FAVORABLE PLEA OFFER AT TRIAL COLLOQUY THROUGH
ERRONEOUS LEGAL ADVICE?

QUESTION 2:
ARE STATES ENTITLED TO AEDPA DEFERENCE ON CONTRARY
APPLYING STRICKLAND AND ERVE, IN OPTING TO BELIEVE A ATTORNEY'S
AFFIDAVIT OVER INMATE'S AFFIDAVITS, ON A COLD RECORD AND WITHOUT EVER OBSERVING DEMEANOR OF WITNESSES?
A) IF NOT, DID IBENYENWA MEET COA STANDARDS?

QUESTION 3:
COULD JURIST OF REASON DEBATE WHETHER
IBENYENWA'S U.S. CONST. AMEND. V, XIII RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED BY A
MULTIPLICIOUS (DOUBLE-DIPPING) / DEFECTIVE INDICTMENT AND JURY
CHARGES; WHETHER THE VIOLATIONS DENIED HIM A FAIR TRIAL
THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TRIAL BECAUSE OF UNDUE PREJUDICE?

QUESTION 4:
WHEN A U.S. CONST. AMEND. V, XIII VIOLATION IS
COULD JURIST OF REASON DEBATE OR AGREE COUNSEL RENDERED (IAC)
IN FAILING TO OBJECT AND WHETHER SUCH INEFFECTIVENESS PREJUDICED
THE DEFENSE?

QUESTION 5:
COULD JURIST OF REASON DEBATE WHETHER THE § 21.02
STATUTE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, FACIALLY AND/OR AS APPLIED AS VIOLATIVE
OF THE U.S. CONST. AMEND. V; XIII; WHETHER THE PROCEDURAL DEFAULT CAUSE AND PREJUDICE RULINGS WERE SATISFIED BY COUNSEL'S FAILURE
TO OBJECT ON THESE GROUNDS WERE CORRECT?

Whether a petitioner deserves encouragement to proceed further when trial counsel instructs him to reject a favorable plea offer at trial colloquy through erroneous legal advice