Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit erroneously denied Certificate of Appealability

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 7 _ Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth ' Circuit erroneously denied Certificate of Appealability in Mr. Gieswein's ; : case. , , , (1). Was Mr. Gieswein's attorney ineffective for failing to : argue or raise that the Guidelines recommend concurrent sentences under : 5G1.2(c) and 3D1.2-5? ; : (2). Was Mr.’ Gieswein's attorney ineffective for failing to argue or raise the "intent" requirement established in Benford under Tenth . Circuit precedent? : 7: . . : (3). Was Mr. Gieswein's attorney ineffective for failing to : argue or raise that Mr. Gieswein's prior conviction for Destruction of property by explosive device, OKla. Stat. Tit. 21 1767.1(a)(1), is not a : . "crime of violence" under 4B1.2(a)(2) and that ‘the conviction exceeded the : ten year limit under 4Al.2(e)? (4). Was Mr. Gieswein's attorney ineffective for failing to argue : or raise that the substantial upward variance was not warranted under the 3553 factors and that the district court applied to much weight to one 3553 factor, incapacitation, and not enough to the 3553 factors that does require more weight, 3553 factors 6-9,? . (5). Was Mr. Gieswein's attorney ineffective for failing to argue or raise that a "De Novo" resentencing was not required when the knot of calculation was undisturbed with the removal of the ACCA enhancement? : (6). Was Mr. Gieswein's attorney ineffective for failing to argue or raise that Mr. Gieswein did not tamper with a witness that was ‘not going to testify in court or that he knew that Amber Lovett or: his . Mother was going to testify in an official proceeding? (7) Was Mr. Gieswein's attorney ineffective for failing to argue or raise that "intent" in Benford must be established in Mr. Gieswein's firearm case and that Mr. Gieswein is protected under the Second Amendment : —_right of scrutiny 922(g)(1) is. unconstitutional? re