I. Whether reasonable jurist could debate that trial and
appellate counsel failed to invoke 18 U.S.C. §921(a)(20)
despite abundant legal support for invoking on the basis
of restoration of civil rights, does counsel's error
render that failure non-prejudicial?

II. Whether reasonable jurist could debate that appellate
counsel failed to raise the issue that a prior conviction
was inadmissible under Huddleston because it was
not relevant under Fed. R. Evid. 401, does counsel's error
render that failure non-prejudicial?

III. Whether reasonable jurist could debate that appellate
counsel failed to raise a Rehaif claim, does counsel's
error render that failure non-prejudicial?

IV. Whether reasonable jurist could debate that 18 U.S.C.
§922(g)(l) is unconstitutional as applied to petitioner's
non-violent felony based on the new Second Amendment
framework that was adopted in Bruen?

Whether reasonable jurist could debate that trial and appellate counsel failed to invoke 18 U.S.C. §921(a)(20)