Should the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals have issued a Certificate of Appealability in the instant case to resolve an open question in the Sixth Circuit of "whether or not 18 U.S.C. §1959(a)(3) qualifies as a crime of violence for the purpose of §924(c) (3)( A) element clause?

Based on this Court's holdings in Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 155 L.Ed.2d 714, 123 S.Ct. 1690 (2003), did the Sixth Circuit errer in determining that petitioner waived his ineffective assistance of counsel claims because he did not raise them on direct appeal?

Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to challenge duplicious charging of two seperate conspiracy elements in the same count where Government admitted error but district court ruled the error harmless?

Was trial counsel ineffective for not challenging petitioner's conviction and sentence prior to resentencing, where Government presented no evidence of a "practical certainty" that petitioner knew that firearm would be used during illegal conduct? (Rosemond v. United States, 134 S.Ct. 1240 (2014)

Does this Court's holding in Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013) allow a sentencing court to use its own factual findings to increase the sentence over the mandatory, minimum?

Whether 18 U.S.C. §1959(a)(3) qualifies as a crime of violence for the purpose of §924(c)(3)(A) element clause