Was counsel's single statement that 'if you appeal you will get more time' adequate advice or deficient performance?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Question, T After trial and again after sentencing, Brandon Thomas requested that his , attorney appeal the criminal judgment. Counsel's advice consisted of "if you appeal, you will get more time." This court holds than attorney's failure to properly advise a criminal defendant concerning the benefits and detriments of filing an appeal constitutes deficient performance that is presumptively prejudicial. See Idaho v. Garza, 139 S.Ct. 738 (2019); Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000). The Eleventh Circuit denied a certificate of appealability on the basis that Mr. Thomas could not show prejudice. Two questions emerge from the Eleventh Circuit's order: 1. Was counsel's single statement that "if you appeal you will get more time" adequate advice or deficient performance? 2. Does a single line from an attorney shift the presumption of prejudice from presumed to actual and injurious? Question II The Eleventh Circuit also concluded—without a certificate of appealability—-that Mr. Thomas's otherwise valid (as alleged) § 2255 claims did not warrant a certificate of appealability because Mr. Thomas could not prove prejudice. Did the Eleventh Circuit order violate the jurisdictional rule announced by this Court in Buck v. Davis, 137 S.Ct. 759 (2017)? Question III Mr. Thomas offered statements from witnesses that supported his claims of actual innocence, investigator misconduct, and a desire to appeal. The district court refused to permit the statements to be introduced into the record via Rule 7 or an evidentiary hearing. Should the district court have conducted an evidentiary hearing before deciding the merits of Mr. Thomas's § 2255 motion? . -i