Whether Mr. Weiss was denied his right to conflict-free counsel during grand jury proceedings

question presented is: Whether Mr. Weiss was denied his right to conflict-free counsel during grand jury proceedings, and a Certificate of Appealability should have issued, where the government had committed itself to prosecute and the adverse positions of the government and Mr. Weiss had solidified? 2. A criminal defendant has a right to one full and fair opportunity to have his first “ 28 U.S.C. §2255 motion considered by the district court. §2255(a). See 141 Cong. y Rec. $7803, $7809 (1995) (statement of Senator Kennedy) (“[L]imi[ing] inmates : . to one bite at the apple is sound in principle”) (italics added). In this case, Mr. Weiss, through counsel, filed a Section 2255 motion. On the same day, Mr. Weiss 2 filed a pro se motion under 2255, and a motion to file pro se pleadings. As cause, x Mr. Weiss, by unsworn declaration, explained that (1) he is financially unable to # pay his attorney to perfect any arguments other than those presented in his counseled 2255 motion, and (2) regardless, his attorney informed him that he could not review any additional arguments because there was not enough time for him to due so, considering the voluminous record in his case. Without determining whether Mr. Weiss had stated cause for him to file pro se arguments, the court denied the pro se motion and request to file pro se pleadings. The question presented is: Whether Mr. Weiss was denied access to the courts, or, appropriate review, and a Certificate of Appealability should have issued, where he could not afford to pay his attorney to perfect his arguments, and, further, where his attorney informed him that, regardless, he could not perfect any other arguments because he would not have time to review the record, thus entitling him to file pro se pleadings?