Did the Sixth Circuit Court error when it failed to grant Petitioner a Certificate of Appealability after previously ruling in his favor, by stating that he had the right to challenge his underlying conviction and sentence after receiving a de novo resentencing?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Did the Sixth Circuit Court error when it failed to grant Petitioner a Certificate Of Appealability after previously ruling in his favor, by stating that he had the right to challenge his underlying conviction and sentence after receiving an de novo resentencing? King v. Morgan, 807 F.3d 154 As well Petitioner would like this Honorable Court to determine whether he was denied his due process protection right as guaranteed by the United States Constitution, when the state painted an uncharacteristic picture of Petitioner and in flame the passion of his jury by attacking his defense of self-defense and stating that he was in their backyard, in their city, and so forth. Petitioner believes that the 6" Cir. error in their determination that he did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal constitutional right according to U.S.C. §2253(c)(2) and asserts that there were no doubt that jurists could debate whether 1) was he fully given fair notice as to the charges against him because his indictment failed to list the requisite mens rea, as to counts three (3) and four (4), as require by Ohio’s Constitution and the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment United States Constitution. 2) His conviction was against the manifest and sufficiency of the evidence, after presenting evidence of perjured testimony from several of the state’s witnesses, and as well the inconsistency in the states theory as to that of physical evidence, and with that of Petitioner’s testimony along with the testimony of 12 year old Jamie Williams [at the time], his conviction and sentence was in fact against the sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence. 3) He did receive ineffective 2 assistance of Appellant Counsel for counsel’s failure to raise grounds five through seven in his direct appeal for Petitioner. Petitioner has proved through clear and convincing evidence that Grounds Five, Six and Seven should not, nor can not, be procedurally defaulted due to the State’s claim of procedural bar because he had the right to file a 26(B), Application to reopen direct appeal, pursuant to Ohio Rule of Criminal Procedure after receiving an de novo resentence. And as well Petitioner has shown that his constitutional right was violated by the State’s improper remarks that denied him affair trial and due process of law. And he was . denied the effective assistance of trial counsel for his failure to object to the State’s improper remarks that allowed the jury to believe that the state’s remarks were true and correct. 3