Failing to file a suppression motion is not per se ineffective assistance of counsel. Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 106 S.Ct. 2574, 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986). But a trial counsel's failure to file a pretrial motion to suppress is objectively ineffective when the trial court denies a subsequently-appointed counsel's after-the-fact motion — based upon sufficient grounds to suggest a motion to suppress would have affected the outcome of the proceedings — to rectify the failure to file the motion.

The two underlying issues that trial counsel failed to challenge support a certificate of appealability regarding ineffectiveness of counsel: (1) whether law enforcement can search a different residence under a "general search warrant" that fails to conform to the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment; or alternatively, (2) whether law enforcement, who fail to timely execute that general warrant, may use it to create exigent circumstances to enter the second residence.

Therefore, the question before the court becomes:

Is a defendant entitled to a certificate of appealability to challenge a denied 28 U.S.C. §2255 motion on ineffective assistance of counsel when an attorney fails to timely file a motion to suppress evidence obtained by law enforcement who (1) relied upon a general search warrant for one address to search a different residence, or alternatively, (2) failed to timely execute the general warrant at the first residence so as to create exigent circumstances to search a second residence?

Is a defendant entitled to a certificate of appealability to challenge a denied 28-U.S.C-2255 motion on ineffective-assistance-of-counsel when an attorney fails to timely file a motion to suppress evidence obtained by law-enforcement who (1) relied upon a general-search-warrant for one address to search a different residence, or alternatively, (2) failed to timely execute the general-warrant at the first residence so as to create exigent-circumstances to search a second residence?