Whether the right to choice of counsel or effective assistance is violated when counsel is appointed to represent fewer claims than the Government is ordered to respond to

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Ina proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, whether the right to choice of counsel or effective assistance is violated when counsel is appointed to represent fewer claims than the Government is ordered to respond to? 2. In view of Fed. Rule App. Proc. 27(c), whether the logic of Hohn v. United States, 524 U.S. 236 (1998), requires that while a single circuit judge acting alone may grant an application for a certificate of appealability, only a panel of circuit judges may deny the application? 3. In deciding an application for a certificate of appealability, whether the opinion of the court of appeals should take the form of a judicial action amenable to review by this Court so as to comport with Hohn v. United States, 524 U.S. 236 (1998), rather than the merely conclusory form that may suffice for some administrative actions? 4. Whether Evans was denied his right to an evidentiary hearing and/or his right to amend regarding his claims of actual innocence in accordance with habeas corpus standards? 5. Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f is unconstitutional as a statute of limitations allowing the Government to get away with violating a defendant's constitutional rights unless habeas corpus is prosecuted before the time specified in the statute has passed? : iii . 6. Whether the appointment of ineffective assistance in a criminal proceeding is a governmental action that creates an impediment that is not removed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(2) until the defendant learns the legal basis of his claims? 7. In order to have merit under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(4), whether the predicate of a claim of prosecutorial misconduct must be discovered with due diligence and in reasonable proximity to the date on which the judgment of conviction became final? 8. Whether Evans is legally and factually innocent based on evidence showing that his device was not a weapon of mass destruction? 9. Whether Evans is legally and factually innocent of having violated a count of the indictment that was neither charged in the criminal complaint nor was it the same as the nonexistent offense the magistrate judge reported him pleading guilty to? NN iv ,