Whether when a factual basis supporting a conviction pursuant to a criminal statute is verifiably false the defendant can still be convicted without a factual basis?

Whether when an attorney accepts an official State position (promised Prosecutor job) as compensation that he could only receive by convincing his client to plead guilty violates the Defendants' right to have effective assistance of counsel rendering the affected proceeding fundamentally unfair and unreliable?

Whether when an attorney fails to investigate an exculpatory fact it invalidates the guilty plea?

Whether when medical doctors are able to prove a Defendants' medical condition allowing them to prove with certainty that the accusations against the Defendant could not have happened demonstrates actual innocence warranting habeas relief?

Whether, Appellate Court erred in denying a Certificate of Appealability and affirming the District Courts Judgments?

Whether a factual basis supporting a criminal conviction can be verifiably false and still result in a valid conviction; whether an attorney accepting a promised prosecutor job as compensation for convincing a client to plead guilty violates effective assistance of counsel; whether failure to investigate exculpatory facts invalidates a guilty plea; whether a medical condition proving impossibility of accusations demonstrates actual innocence warranting habeas relief; whether the Appellate Court erred in denying a Certificate of Appealability