Whether the lower court erred in dismissing petitioner's claims for lack of standing and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted

ESTIONS PRESENTED 1. This Supreme Court recently handed down Buck vy. Davis, 137 S.Ct. 759 (2017), in which the Court criticized the Fifth Circuit for applying a too-high standard to the review process in applications for Certificates of Appealability ("COA"). In remanding the case to the Fifth Circuit, this Court emphasized that a merits-review goes far beyond what is required for a showing that reasonable jurists could disagree with the district court's resolution of the constitutional issue. The Fourth Circuit's procedures require petitioners seeking a COA to file a merits-brief that will become the Opening Brief reviewed by the Court of Appeals if a COA is issued. See Local Rule 34(b)(App.E1) and Preliminary Briefing Order (App.E2). Does the Fourth Circuit's Local Rule 34(b) and Preliminary Briefing Order, which require COA applicants to file a brief that will become the merits-brief if a ; COA is issued, contradict this Court's holding in Buck and demand a too-high standard of COA applicants? 2. Because a proper preliminary review of Petitioner's claim that McDonnell v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2355 (2016) invalidated his bribery conviction had obvious merit, even if the Fourth Circuit's COA standard is not too high a standard, the Court of Appeals still violated Buck by not issuing a COA. After Petitioner Miserendino's conviction became final, this Court decided McDonnell, significantly narrowing the kind of conduct that qualifies as an "official act" as required for convictions of bribery of a public official under 18 U.S.C. Section 201(b). The McDonnell Court expressly excluded as “official acts" conduct even more egregious than Petitioner Miserendino's conduct, which included only proofreading and offering word/phrase suggestions to other reviewers of government Statements of Work and attending meetings with other government officials to give technical advice. The District Court denied the merits of Petitioner Miserendino's Section 2255 petition, choosing (1) to ignore Petitioner Miserendino's clarifying affidavit evidence which did not contradict the record, (2) to ignore that Petitioner Miserendino was a government contractor significantly removed from the decision-making process with no influence over said decisions and who lacked the standing or authority or influence to commit bribery, and (3) to refuse to hold an evidentiary hearing regarding his disputed material evidence showing same. Does the McDonnell decision exclude the specific conduct Petitioner Miserendino agreed he committed and thereby invalidate his bribery conviction, and how could any reasonable jurist not disagree with the District Court's resolution of the constitutional issue? 1