Whether the Ninth Circuit violated the Petitioner's Fifth Amendment Due Process rights by denying a Certificate of Appealability without conducting the mandatory § 2253(c) threshold inquiry, and whether trial counsel's failure to object to the physical restraint enhancement constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment

Was the Petitioner's Fifth Amendment Due Process rights violated when the Ninth Circuit denied his Certificate of Appealability petition for a procedurally dismissed § 2255 habeas without conducting the mandatory § 2253(c) threshold inquiry? Did trial counsel's failure to object to the physical restraint enhancement in the base offense level calculation constitute ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment? The physical restraint enhancement in U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(4)(B) has different interpretations across Circuits. The Ninth Circuit's view contrasts with others, indicating a need for review. Circuit courts are divided on applying this enhancement in the Sentencing Guidelines, leading to varied conclusions in similar cases. To resolve this split, a standardized test is needed for a consistent definition. Whether U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(4)(B), the term "physically restrained" is defined in Application Note 1 (L) to § IB 1.1 (Application Instructions) as "the forcible restraint of the victim such as by being tied, bound, or locked up," which serves as the controlling interpretation of that guideline.