Whether the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals erred in inverting the statutory order of operation by deciding the merits of the appeal and then denying the COA and evidentiary hearing based on adjudication of the actual merits

No question identified. : /Dib THE US. FIFTH Cincull CV. OF APPEALS ENTER A DICISION DEPARTING FROM THE ACCEPTED AND USUAL COURSE OF SUDICIAL PROCEEDING BY INVERTING JHE STATUTORY ORDEFe OF OPERIWION BY DECIDING JHE MERLIS OF THE SUPERL AND THEN DENYING THE COA AND EVIDENTIARY HERRINE BASED DN ADSUbICATION OF JHE ACTUAL MEPIS, IS 70 CALE FoR AN EXERCISE OF THIS COURTS SUPERVIS ORY fowER ? 2HAS THE STATE COURT CF LAST RESORT DEC(DED AX — YMPORTANT FEDERAL QUESTION (Nh LAY JUAT CONFLICTS WITH A DECIS/ON OF A US. COURT OF APPEALS, MAMELY (NV BEPIANE Yo SCOTT 28 F SE IT CET cik 1999), BS TO CALL FOR AN EXERCISE OF THIS 2OURTS “SUPERVISORY POUJER & 3WAS A tuS. COURT OF APPEMS DECIDED AH /MPORTANT FEDERAL QUESTION (MN A AAS JHAT CONFLICTS wisi RELEVENT DECISIONS OF FHIS Coury, NAMECESY Buck V DAVIS 137 SUP CT C3101 2)5 AND STRICKLAND WASH INGIDM, OF SUP.Ch IED: AS TO CALL FOR AN EXERCISE OF THIS COURTS SUPER visoky PowEl §& . FOoYNOTE? QUESTIONS 42,3 AECUMENT COMBINE) PREES Le-18 _ QUESTIONS YHAS A STAVE Coury DECIDED AW (MIPORVHMY T | QUESTION THAT HAS OV BEEN BUT SHOULD BE SEITC ED BY THIS COURT, OF WHEY HER (QEDPA'S) LYAUT ON FCI, REVISE) OF STATE DECISIONS AN FEDERAL PACT DEVECOLMEWNT COMBINED COTM PRA CTILALLE NON > EXISVENT FACT DEVECOP/SIENT PROCEDURES ON SYAVE HABEAS AbUNTS FR. AN LUNCONSVIVUTIONAL Stls PENSION OF FHE CRIT £ SWAS A STATE CourT DECIDED AN (PORTANT QUESTION THAT HAS NOT BEEN BUT SHOULD BE SEVHME BY VIS COURT LUAEXKE A FUN DAIAEN TAL A115 CAWLUMAEE OF TOLS FICE REEULTEL LM A CONVICTION, OF FET Y (ONC LdHO US ACTUALLY JMAOCENT © 6HAS A STATE CourT DECIDED AN MPORTANT FEDERAL QUESTION IN A WAY THAT CONFEL/CTS B/TE RELEVANT DECISION OF THUS COURT NAMELY ~~ CHAPMAN V_CALIFORMIA. B72 SUP: Ch, C1962) AS TO . / CALL FOR AN EXERCISE OF TH)S couriTs | Sy PERWSORY POWER F FootTNorE! QUESTION 4 ARGUMEHT PAGES 21-23 QUESTION 5 ARCLMENT PREES 17-1 ouEstortle AkedmenT faces &4-28 . A 7 oe NO, IN THE SUPREME CouRT OF THE UNITED STATES DESREL R, LINDEN, ' PETITIONER VS DIRECTOR, TDAI~-C/b RESPONDENT a OE PETIVION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI 7OTHE HONORABLE SUSTICES OF THE SAID COURT! Mow COMES DESREL R, LINDEN AWD PURSUANT FO THE PROWS/ONS OF RULE /O AND 12, RULES OF JHE SUPREME Couey OF THE UNITED STV ES, HEREBY PEYITION JS CbttreF TO (ssi a wily OF CERTIORARI TO REVIEt) THE SULGMENT ENTERED BY THE US. COuRT OF APPEALS FOR THE FLETH CIRCUIT LoHOs ORDER DEN/ED PETITIONERS METION FOR COA) ANL SIOTION FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING LOHICH DENYS PETITIONER DE HWS COVSTITUTIONAL RIGA TO EPFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AT FRIAL, — COURTS ORDER . THE ORDER OF THE S™ CIR, OF CASE NO. 7-LOY3BY (5 THE SUBIECT OF TUS PETITION, turtle ws (SSUEd MARX), 20/8, ZT DENIED PETITIONERS MOTION FOR COA. ANE EV/DENTIMEY HERRING LIHICH DENYS PEVPIONERS tof210¥ OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO 2B USE, SEC, BEY, SCE MPENDIKS EXE AY vue 5 cin. ON APRIL ld, 2018 DEMED PEYIVONERS Molo FOR EXTEN SLOW EF TIME FO FILE PABTION FOR RECONSiD ELA VIO M, . SEE