1. Does the rule in Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958, 1967 (2017), that directs courts to credit contemporaneous evidence, and not "post hoc assertions from a defendant about how he would have pleaded," apply in cases involving the rejection of plea offers?

2. Has a habeas petitioner established a "reasonable probability" that he would have accepted a lost plea offer where his testimony is corroborated by his attorney's admission that he failed to advise him of a 25-year mandatory minimum and would have advised him differently had he known about it, where there is a large disparity between the sentence imposed and the sentence called for in the plea deal, and where the petitioner established a contemporaneous willingness to plead guilty to a lesser offense?

3. Does a habeas petitioner make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right," 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), as required for the issuance of a certificate of appealability, where he identifies factually analogous decisions that support his claim for habeas relief?

Whether the rule in Lee v. United States applies to cases involving the rejection of plea offers