Whether, in light of Ayestas v. Davis, 138 S. Ct. 1080 (2018), a court applies an overly burdensome standard for funding under 18 U.S.C. § 3599(f) when it requires a petitioner prove that he is likely to clear any procedural hurdles and win relief on the underlying habeas claim to receive any resources

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW This Court has unanimously ruled, in multiple cases, that Congress’s intent in enacting 18 U.S.C. § 3599 was to provide quality representation to qualifying prisoners sentenced to death in federal habeas corpus proceedings, above even that afforded to the accused in non-capital trials. Ayestas v. Davis, 138 8. Ct. 1080 (2018); Martel v. Clair, 565 U.S. 648 (2012). By denying Mr. Ochoa any requested representation services under § 3599(f), the courts below failed to heed these rulings. Absent this Court’s intervention, Mr. Ochoa will be executed without having received meaningful representation informed by investigation to prepare his habeas corpus application. The district court repeatedly denied multiple requests for funding, faulting Mr. Ochoa for failing to demonstrate “a substantial need” for requested assistance—the standard that this Court struck down while Mr. Ochoa’s case was pending on appeal. Instead of remanding the case back to the district court so it could make findings under the proper standard, the Fifth Circuit affirmed because it believed that Mr. Ochoa was “simply seeking to ‘turn over every stone.” No stones, in fact, have been turned over, because of the lack of funds. Far from quality representation, Mr. Ochoa has only had counsel deprived of any means to effectuate his representation. The Court’s intervention is necessary to preserve Mr. Ochoa’s access to the writ of habeas corpus in this case. Accordingly, Mr. Ochoa presents the following question to the Court: (1) Whether, in light of Ayestas v. Davis, 138 S. Ct. 1080 (2018), a court applies an overly burdensome standard for funding under 18 U.S.C. § 3599(f) when it requires a petitioner prove that he is likely to clear any procedural hurdles and win relief on the underlying habeas claim to receive any resources. Mr. Ochoa respectfully requests that if the Court does not grant certiorari for full hearing on the merits in this case, that the Court summarily grants certiorari, vacates the decision below without finding error, and remands the case for further consideration by the lower court.