Was trial counsel ineffective in his directive to advise McCoy to plead guilty by failing to review the government's discovery in violation of this court's decision in Andrus v. Texas, 140 S. Ct. 1875 (2020)?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Over the yearts, this court has issued several ineffective assistance of counsel claims addressing counsel’s failure to prepare and misadvise to a defendant resulting Sixth Amendmend due process violations; Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 123 S. Ct. 2527 (2003), Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30 (2009) (counsel’s failure to review a defendant’s background), Rompilla : v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005) (failure to learn all related to an offense); and recently in Andrus v. Texas, 140 S. Ct. 1875 (2020) (failure to prepare for sentencing in capital cases). In this trend should this court grant certiorari on a failure to properly advise McCoy of the facts of the government’s charges with the following questions: 1. Was trial counsel ineffective in his directive to advise McCoy to plead guilty by failing to review the government’s discovery in violation of this court’s decision in Andrus v. Texas, 140 S. Ct. 1875 (2020)? 2. Should the order of the court of appeals denying a certificate of appealability be reversed and remanded because it is manifestly incorrect to suggest that no reasonable jurist could disagree with a district court order summarily denying a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, where that order directly conflicts with the controlling decisions of this Court and the plain language of § 2255? W