1. WAS TRIAL COUNSEL CONSTITUTIONALLY INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO INVESTIGATE, FACT-CHECK, AND OBJECT TO ERRONEOUS INCLUSION OF JUVENILE PRIORS DURING CRIMINAL HISTORY GUIDELINE CALCULATION?

2. DO THE MERITS OF PETITIONER'S CLAIM WARRANT RELIEF UNDER UNITED STATES V. PLANO, 507 U.S 725, 113 S. CT. 1770, 123 L. Ed. 2d 508; MOLINA-MARTINEZ V. UNITED STATES, 578 U.S., 136 S. Ct. 1338, 194 L. Ed 2d 444; ROSALES-MIRELES V. UNITED STATES, U.S. LEXIS 3690 (2018); and MASSARO V. UNITED STATES, 538 U.S. 500, 504, 123 S. Ct. 1690, 155 L. Ed 2d 714 (2003)?

3. DID THE DISTRICT COURT COMMIT PLAIN ERROR WHEN IT IMPOSED A SENTENCE USING AN INCORRECT GUIDELINE RANGE RELYING ON A MISCALCULATION OF CRIMINAL HISTORY POINTS?

4. DID THE COURTS BELOW ABUSE THEIR DISCRETION IN DENYING PETITIONER'S 28 U.S.C. §2255 MOTION AND REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY?

5. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR IN AFFIRMING THE DENIAL OF PETITIONER'S 28 U.S.C. §2255 MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT SENTENCE WHERE DISTRICT COURT FAILED TO CONDUCT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO RESOLVE FACTUAL DISPUTES?

was-trial-counsel-constitutionally-ineffective