Parole advice before guilty pleas

1. Whether a Court of Appeals violates the threshold standards governing a Certificate of Appealibility when it acknowledges that reasonable jurist could debate whether a procedural forfeiture should be excused, but then denies a certificate only after resolving disputed constitutional and prejudice questions against the Petitioner on their merits, contrary to Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (200), Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003), and Buck v. Davis, 580U.S. 100 (2017). 2. Whether the Sixth Amendment permits defense counsel to give affirmative and materially incorrect advice about the legally ascertainable effect of a guilty plea on parole eligibility when the defendant expressly identifies that consequence as important, relies on counsel ’ s advice, and seeks to withdraw the plea before sentencing immediately after learning that the advice was false. 3. Whether a state court unreasonably applies Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985), and Lee v. United States, 582 U.S. 357 (2017), by finding no plea-stage prejudice principally because conviction at trial appeared likely and the plea reduced the defendant ’ s maximum exposure, while disregarding objective and contemporaneous evidence that the incorrect advice was material to the defendant ’ s decision.