Whether the Sixth Circuit's per se rule in Ramos v. Rogers violates Blackledge v. Allison's prohibition on foreclosing challenges to plea voluntariness, and whether the Certificate of Appealability process impermissibly risks pro forma denials without substantive review

1) Does the Sixth Circuit's holding in Ramos v. Rogers, 170 F.3d 560 (6th Cir.1999) making a plea unasailable "so long as the judge follows the proper Rule 11 colloquy" violate Blackledge v. Allison, 431 US 63 (1977)'s prohibition on per se rules foreclosing any opportunity to show that a plea is involuntary? 2) As currently utilized, does the Certificate of Appealability process impermissibly raise the risk of "pro forma" or "rubber stamp" denials without any real review of the claims raised in the petition? 3) Given the nature of the Speedy Trial Clause, can a judge ever use a prior denial in denying a defendant's reassertion of that right? does significant delay, especially in a term of years, undermine the force of that prior decision?If so 4) Where a District Court misses all or part of a claim(s) presented in a §2255 motion should a Court of Appeals grant the Certificate or issue summary remand, as the Eleventh Circuit does to ensure a petitioner gets the full and fair review of every claim that Congress intended? i.