Whether Reasonable Jurists Could Debate the Denial of Petitioner's Motion to Vacate and Set Aside his Judgment of Conviction

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether Reasonable Jurists Could Debate the Denial of Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate and Set Aside his Judgment of Conviction where the District Court’s Review of Such Petition Did Not Address the Merits of Petitioner’s Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims and Mistakenly Referenced the Arguments of a Different 2255 Petitioner in its Memorandum Opinion. 2. Whether a Certificate of Appealability Should Issue on Petitioner’s Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claim Where Defense Counsel Failed to Object or Otherwise Challenge the Admission of Improper Expert Testimony and Lay Opinion Testimony in violation Criminal Rule 16 and Evidence Rules 701, 702, 703, and 704, and Where the District Court Failed in its “Gatekeeper” Obligations Under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1998) and Evidence Rule 702. ii STATEMENT REQUIRED BY RULE 14.1 Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 14.1, Petitioner states that all