1. Whether the lower courts erred in denying a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and an evidentiary hearing under § 2255 where Petitioner's unrebutted documentary and testimonial evidence, including affidavits, the lead AUSA's own emails, and a tampered trial exhibit given to the jury, established that the prosecution engaged in serious misconduct in presenting the "financial institution" element of bank and mail fraud, and, if credited, would compel vacatur of the conviction.

2. Whether due process is violated when a district court, confronted with unrefuted evidence of constitutional violations and jurisdictional defects, refuses to permit factual development or an evidentiary hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, thereby converting a summary denial into a substitute for review and nullifying the statute's function as a safeguard against wrongful conviction.

3. Whether due process and the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, are violated when the lower courts uphold a restitution order that (1) includes losses unrelated to the offense of conviction, contrary to § 3663A(a)(2), and (2) disregards unrebutted post-conviction evidence showing that the alleged victims and losses were misrepresented through false testimony and suppression of material exculpatory evidence, thereby rendering the restitution judgment contrary to statute and fundamental fairness.

Whether lower courts erred in denying a certificate of appealability and evidentiary hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 where unrebutted evidence established prosecutorial misconduct in presenting the financial institution element of bank and mail fraud, and whether due process is violated when courts refuse to permit factual development despite unrefuted evidence of constitutional violations and jurisdictional defects