I.
Whether a habeas petitioner who seeks a Rhines
stay to exhaust a claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel must establish a "reasonable probability
of a different outcome" in order to establish that
his claim is not "plainly meritless." In particular,
whether applying such an exacting merits-based
standard runs afoul of this Court's rule that a petitioner need only establish a "colorable claim" in
order to justify a Rhines stay, as well as the federalism and comity principles underlying it.

II.
Whether a certificate of appealability may be a
mere "rubber stamp," or whether it should issue
where the district court's ruling differs from the
opinions of other courts on complex procedural issues that have not been squarely addressed by
this Court.

Whether a habeas petitioner who seeks a Rhines stay to exhaust a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must establish a 'reasonable probability of a different outcome' in order to establish that his claim is not 'plainly meritless'