Whether the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals was compelled to consider the petitioner's subsequent pro se demonstration of actual innocence

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. ALTHOUGH NOT ARGUED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL NOR NOTICED BY THE DISTRICT COURT DURING THE 28 U.S.C. §2255 PROCEEDING, WAS THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS COMPELLED TO CONSIDER PETITIONER'S SUBSEQUENT PRO SE DEMONSTRATION OF APPARENT ACTUAL INNOCENCE PRESENTED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HIS APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY? Il. IS AN INDIGENT PRO SE PETITIONER DEPRIVED OF A FULL, FAIR, AND MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO PREPARE AND PRESENT HIS APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY TO THE COURT OF APPEALS WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT REFUSES TO PROVIDE ESSENTIAL TRANSCRIPTS OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AND SECTION 2255 EVIDENTIARY HEARING BASED ON ITS OWN BELIEF THAT PETITIONER WILL NOT PREVAIL — AND THE DISTRICT COURT NEVER CONSIDERED ANY APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY FROM PETITIONER? III. _ IN LIGHT OF LEE v. UNITED STATES, 137 S.CT. 1958 (2017), WHICH HELD THAT A PETITIONER MAY RELY ON CONTEMPORANEOUS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIM THAT HE WOULD HAVE PROCEEDED TO TRIAL RATHER THAN PLED GUILTY BUT FOR COUNSEL"S MISADVICE, DID THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, IN CONSIDERATION OF PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, ERR IN FAILING TO FIND DEBATABLE OR WRONG THE DISTRICT COURT'S FAILURE TO WEIGH CONTEMPORANEOUS EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTED PETITIONER'S CLAIM THAT HE WOULD HAVE WANTED TO FILE AN APPEAL AND INSTRUCTED COUNSEL TO DO SO? ; “iL