1. Whether a district court's 13-month, unexplained silence on liberty-related motions — followed by unsigned docket-entry denials that never addressed a single substantive claim — constitutes court-induced prejudice and an "extraordinary circumstance" warranting equitable tolling of § 2255(f) under Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010).

2. Whether the Second Circuit's refusal to issue a COA — despite the total absence of any reasoned ruling on timeliness or the merits — violates the "reasonable jurist could debate" standard of Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478 (2000).

3. Whether issuing the mandate on the very day Petitioner received the order, thereby denying him the full 14-day period guaranteed by FRAP 35 and 40, violated due process.

4. Whether federal courts' systemic failure to abide by procedural rules in pro se habeas cases — such as unexplained delays, unsigned denials, and premature mandates — violates the Constitution's due process guarantees and the Suspension Clause, affecting tens of thousands of litigants nationwide.

Whether a district court's 13-month unexplained silence on liberty-related motions constitutes court-induced prejudice warranting equitable tolling under Holland v. Florida