Whether the denial of meaningful representation required by 18 U.S.C. § 3599 may cause a defect in the integrity of federal habeas proceedings that can justify reopening of judgment under Rule 60(b)(6)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Petitioner Joseph C. Garcia was sentenced to death in the State of Texas under the state’s controversial “law of parties,” due in large part to the ineffective assistance of Garcia’s court-appointed trial counsel. Unfortunately, Garcia’s experience with counsel in his state and federal habeas proceedings was no better, and at least four meritorious and compelling claims of trial counsel ineffectiveness were never investigated or raised on Garcia’s behalf. Garcia’s current counsel filed a motion to reopen his federal habeas proceedings in order to raise the claims that Garcia’s prior counsel had missed, but the district court denied the motion. Garcia’s case raises an issue of national importance: whether the criminal justice system tolerates executing indigent defendants who do not receive meaningful federal habeas review of their case because they were denied meaningful representation under 18 U.S.C. § 3599. Specifically: 1. Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit imposed an improper and unduly burdensome Certificate of Appealability (COA) standard when it reached the merits of Garcia’s Rule 60(B)(6) motion in denying him a COA. 2. Whether the denial of meaningful representation required by 18 U.S.C. § 3599 may cause a defect in the integrity of federal habeas proceedings that can justify reopening of judgment under Rule 60(b)(6). i