Whether indigent petitioner's freestanding factual innocence showing is being constructively denied appointment of counsel on first and all other appeals denying statutory right to appeal excludes state court exhaustion requirement, and whether federal district and second circuit courts erred in denying a COA to reopen the case consolidation

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED |, Whe¥her indigent peltioner’s GRTEMIAL FACT UALTNNOCENCE Showing hide beng, | Constroctively DENTED! appointment ol Counsel oa FIRSTam ALLothey appeals | _DENYING Stahulory "RIGHT to appeal eXLUSES Stale covet exhousion.. oa ’ Das Hy ny we vo vege uv hie Nad TRU irement, and, vr FEDERAL Dishricl om SECOND CERCULT Courts "ERRORED AT DENYING 0. [C.0,A) fo" REOPEN with CASE "Consclidotion 22? 7 VIP Wot whether pelitioner’s extarominer y EXISTING civcomstances under . Cas n aupn ae Trl VC EDT Teal! Pek 3% US.C4, 954 COYUXBAD remacAMEMPTeh Stele Ext AUST LON onEXCEPT LON” ?2: 3, Whethor Detect Court enanrent in DENYING petitioners request For an -_ an par Vo\ UNBIASED J vdge Change. and (Aust) RE CUSALpdicial REFUSAL £2? 4. Whether “ALL oxtcaordinoy y EXISTING Circumstances RENDER pelt oner on appomiinent oh appropriate counsel wilh RELEASE’ pending FENALETY” 222 5: Whellner "Secon CLRCUTY Court ERRORED on ane RULINGS in DIO! ol TIMELY binding Contractual“ COLORING OF LAW agreements 277 £. Whether prior “SECOND CLACUEN panel members JOdaol LMPROPRLETY | Constitute o VIOLATIONS 38 05.05 455(a),(b), on VOR'RENDER'ANV OC ALL Subsequ ent Distnicl on CERCUET COURTS’ decisions "YOLN” Re? | Tr Whether EMERGEN CY"A8 05,04 A1Db Supervisory CORRECTIVE ACTION’ , Should be ENFORCED'on' MERLTS'in" THES CASE DP MTSCARRAGE of JUSTICE ander SUPREME” Court exersize “POWER” Pee . Se {