Sari Alqsous v. United States

QUESTION ONE: Whether a court of appeals departs from the proper certificate-of-appealability inquiry described in Hohn v. United States, Slack v. McDaniel, and Miller-El v. Cockrell when it concludes that no reasonable jurist could debate the denial of a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, even though the district court resolved disputed, off-the-record allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel on a paper record without an evidentiary hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b). QUESTION TWO: Whether a defendant’s sworn declaration alleging that counsel’s material misadvice regarding sentencing exposure induced him to proceed to trial may be treated as conclusively refuted by later statements made during a court colloquy, thereby eliminating the need for an evidentiary hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b) and this Court’s precedent in Blackledse v. Allison. QUESTION THREE: Whether a court of appeals may invoke the discretionary concurrent sentence doctrine to decline review of a substantial post­ conviction challenge to bribery-related convictions in light of Snyder v. United States, particularly where the challenged convictions are alleged to carry meaningful collateral consequences beyond the aggregate term of imprisonment.