1. Whether reasonable jurists could debate whether habeas relief and re sentencing is required when a defendant's sentence was premised on prior convictions and a sentence that were later found unconstitutional and vacated?

2. Whether reasonable jurists could debate whether Stephens's counsel were ineffective in failing to challenge his prior unconstitutional convictions and sen-tence?

3. Whether reasonable jurists could debate whether Stephens's right to testify was violated because he relinquished that right under the misapprehension that he could be impeached with his prior unconstitu-tional convictions?

Whether reasonable jurists could debate whether habeas relief and resentencing is required when a defendant's sentence was premised on prior convictions and a sentence that were later found unconstitutional and vacated?