deficient to be persuasive. (See D.E. 56 at 151-56). Nor does the evidence show that Dodd failed to "consult with his client on important decisions and [ ] keep him informed of important developments in the course of the prosecution.” Diaz, 930 F.2d at 834. The government's position did not change, so no "important development” existed to communicate. 4 . While Cook may dispute this fact, the district court credited Dodd’s testimony on this point, and Cook has offered no reason why we should not defer to the court’s finding. See Osley, 751 F.3d at 1222; Jeffries, 748 F.3d at 1313. 5 . The government suggests that we should not address this argument because it is outside the scope of the certificate of appealability. See Murray v. United States, 145 F.3d 1249, 1250-51 (11th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). While we agree that Cook cannot proceed
holding that appellate review in a habeas ease is limited to the issues specified in the coa holding that a coa is required to appeal the denial of a rule 60b motion from a judgment in a  2254 proceeding holding that on appeal from the denial of a  2255 motion appellate review is limited to the issues specified in the coa holding the scope of appellate review of denial of a habeas petition limited to the issues on which coa has been granted holding a coa is granted on an issuebyissue basis thereby limiting appellate review to those issues