Whether the Petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255, when reasonable jurists have already determined, the District Court's assessment of the case to be debatable or wrong, and there remain unresolved factual disputes?

Whether, given this Court's decision in Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2493 (2014), a warrantless search of a cell phone seized incident-to-arrest can be justified when (A) the phone was securely in possession of the police for 18 days prior to the search, (B) there were no longer any special needs of law enforcement, and (C) there were no exigent circumstances?

Whether the Petitioner should be afforded an opportunity to question former Defense Counsel in open court regarding matters pertaining to ineffectiv.eassistance; particularly, when the District Court denying the petition was not the Court that presided over the pretrial suppression hearings?

Whether., given the specific facts and circumstances of the case, conducting a "voluntariness test" runs afoul of the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment?

Whether the Petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255