Was Mr. Pedrin prejudiced by counsel's deficiencies?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED , Government agents lured Petitioner Joseph Alex Pedrin into a plan to rob a fictitious stash house by dangling before him a scheme that was “rich in pay off,” and involved little work or risk. At the time the government approached him, it had no evidence supporting any predisposition by Mr. Pedrin to commit such a crime and, in fact, Mr. Pedrin did NOT go through with the scheme. While the agents videotaped their interaction with Mr. Pedrin, a substantial portion of the video, which included highly exculpatory evidence, was deleted or missing. United States vy. Pedrin, 806 F.3d 1009 (9% Cir. 11-23-15) (Noonan dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc) While Mr. Pedrin implored counsel to hire an expert to investigate the video, counsel did not do so. While Mr. Pedrin implored counsel to obtain the testimony of a key witness, counsel did not do so. Mr. Pedrin was found guilty, sentenced to 210 months incarceration and his appeal was denied. He filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion raising the foregoing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel but that was denied. On appeal, a Certificate of Appealability was denied without any kind of analysis, explanation or reviewable record. 1.) Was Mr. Pedrin prejudiced by both the individual and cumulative impact of multiple deficiencies or errors by counsel during the pretrial, plea, trial, sentencing and direct appeal process? 2.) Did Mr. Pedrin receive careful consideration and plenary processing of his claims, including a full opportunity for presentation of the relevant facts as required by this Court’s decisions in Blackledge v. Allison and progeny? 3.) Should the Court of Appeals have provided some kind of statement of reasons or a reviewable record as to why it denied the Certificate of Appealability? i + ‘ J . :