Whether the Court of Appeals Erred in Denying Petitioner's Application for a Certificate of Appealability

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether the Court of Appeals Erred in Denying Petitioner’s Application for a Certificate of Appealability to Appeal the District Court’s Denial of His Motion to Vacate his 262 months’ Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. 2255(a), When Intervening Precedent Establishes that Petitioner's 262 months’ Sentence was Imposed in Error. Whether Trial Counsel Adequately Failed to Argue the Lower Penalty Provisions under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA), Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat.2372. Dorsey v. United States, 32 S. Ct. 2321 (2012); and Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 558, 566 (2007); Gall _v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) Which Offers Crucial Guidance on the Extent of Sentencing Courts’ Discretion to Deviate from the Advisory Sentencing Guideline articulated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Whether Title 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii), Establishing a Ten-Year Mandatory Minimum Sentence for a Defendant Who Never Had a Firearm During a Crime of Violence, Requires Proof of Mens Rea. The Due Process Clause does not Tolerate Convictions for Conduct that Was Never Criminal. 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(a) Mens Rea Requirement Under Title 18 § 924(c)(1)(a) of the United States Code provides That a Person Convicted of Violating the Subsection is Subject to a Minimum Sentence of Five Years if During the Course of the Violation the Individual Carried a Firearm. Whether the Passage of Time Between the Offense and Allen Sentencing is ; More than Thirteen Years Which Violates Allen’s Due Process. Whether Title 21 U.S.C. § 851 (a) Requires the Government to File Notice “Before Trial” If It Intends to Seek an Enhanced Punishment for a Drug Offense Based On the Defendant’s Prior Criminal Conviction. In this Case, the Government Did Not Provide Notice ‘Before Sentence” But Provided It after Sentence. |