Whether a criminal defendant's generic waiver of right to appeal or collateral attack can waive ineffective assistance of counsel claim

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. The courts of appeals are divided over whether a criminal defendant’s generic waiver of his right to appeal or bring a collateral attack can knowingly waive the defendant’s specific right to bring a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Where, as here, a criminal defendant’s waiver of his right to bring a collateral attack does not mention a claim of ineffective counsel, can that waiver ever be construed as a knowing waiver of the right to challenge his counsel’s constitutional effectiveness? 2. In Jae Lee v. United States, this Court held that counsel’s erroneous advice regarding the immigration consequences of his guilty plea could render the defendant’s waiver of his right to trial not knowing. Does the rationale of Lee apply here, where Petitioner alleged the counsel’s erroneous advice regarding his possible sentence rendered Petitioner’s decision to waive his right to appeal the sentence not knowing? 3. In support of his request for certificate of appealability, Petitioner presented the court of appeals with lengthy cogent arguments supported by ample citations to precedent and record showing that the district court had committed legal error. The Fifth Circuit denied the COA in a brief order that neither acknowledged Petitioner’s arguments nor explained the court’s decision. Was this unexplained decision so arbitrary that it deprived the Petitioner of his right to due process under the Fifth Amendment? ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED — Continued In the alternative, should this court exercise its supervisory powers to vacate the lower court’s decision where that unexplained decision precludes this court from any meaningful review of the basis of the Fifth Circuit’s decision? 4. The Petitioner demonstrated that the district court, in denying Petitioner’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 committed legal error by, among other errors, wrongly applying the law of the case doctrine, but the Fifth Circuit denied the COA without explanation. Was the Fifth Circuit’s erroneous application of the COA standard so far below the expected performance of a federal court of appeals that this court should reverse the decision of the lower court?