Did the appellate court err in denying a certificate of appealability on whether the district court erred or alternatively abuse its discretion by denying Mr. Wills' §2255 motion based on its finding that the claim he raised or attempted to raise in ground one of his pro se §2255 motion, that he was actually innocent of career offender status, was waived by his plea agreement and not a cognizable claim for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because his career offender sentence did not exceed the applicable statutory maximum?

Question Presented on Request and Application for COA ‘ Did the appellate court err in denying a certificate of appealability on whether the district -court erred or alternatively abuse its discretion by denying Mr. Wills' §2255 motion based on its finding that the’claim he raised or attempted to raise in ground one of his pro se §2255 motion, that he was actually innocent of career offender status, was waived by his plea agreement and not a cognizable claim for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because his career offender | sentence did not exceed the applicable statutory maximum? | [2]. 2nd Question Presented on Request and Application for COA | Did the appellate court err in denying a certificate of appealability on whether the district | court erred or alternatively abuse its discretion in failing to construe ground one to include — or | ‘implicitly denying — Mr. Wills’ ineffective assistance of counsel claims related to counsels’ | failure to raise a challenge to the use of his prior state conviction as a career offender | predicate at sentencing or on direct appeal?