After trial and again after sentencing, Brandon Thomas requested that his attorney appeal the criminal judgment. Counsel's advice consisted of "if you appeal, you will get more time."

This court holds than attorney's failure to properly advise a criminal defendant concerning the benefits and detriments of filing an appeal constitutes deficient performance that is presumptively prejudicial. See Idaho v. Garza, 139 S.Ct. 738 (2019); Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000). The Eleventh Circuit denied a certificate of appealability on the basis that Mr. Thomas could not show prejudice. Two questions emerge from the Eleventh Circuit's order:

1. Was counsel's single statement that "if you appeal you will get more time" adequate advice or deficient performance?

2. Does a single line from an attorney shift the presumption of prejudice from presumed to actual and injurious?

Did the Eleventh Circuit order violate the jurisdictional rule announced by this Court in Buck v. Davis, 137 S.Ct. 759 (2017)?

Should the district court have conducted an evidentiary hearing before deciding the merits of Mr. Thomas's § 2255 motion?

Was counsel's single statement that 'if you appeal you will get more time' adequate advice or deficient performance?