Whether the 5th Circuit erred in denying Mr. Rivera's procedural request for a Certificate of Appealability (COA) in violation of Supreme Court precedent

QUESTION PRESENTED PETITIONER Mr. RIVERA ALLEGED THAT HIS TRIAL CoUWSEL was IMEFYECTIVE FoR FAILING TO CALL A WITVESS OF WHOM. Mr RVERA MADE HIM AWARE. PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED, IW LARGE PART. VYOW VIVCOKROBORATED EVIDEMLE RY AE COMPLAINANTS, Iv WolATION OF THE DUE PROCESS, AND THE CIT AMENDMENT. MY TAAL CounSEL FAILED 10 Conduct AY INDEFEW DENT IVVESTIGATIOW OF THE FACS oF THE CASE, TRinl COUWSEL FAILED To Call AWD INTERVIEW EYE WITMESSES THAT ROSE T0 THE LEVEL oF A Const T0vAlLy DEFICIEIT PERFORCE. Ald THE DEFILIENT ER FORMANCE PRETUDICED PETINOMER. PETITIONER COMTENIS THAT WAS ACTUALLY snnoCEWT OF THE CHARGES. AVD MR. RIVERA CONVICTION WAS UVCOWSTTVTIOWBL BECAUSE Mr. RIERA. HAVE WO PRIOR OPPORTUNITY 10 COVAROMT THE WIMESSES acRIcT HIM, AND CROSS-EXAMIVE. (TY TRIAL CoUNSEL FAILED Th REQUEST. CRITICAL EXCULPATORY EVIDEME To Dp h. ON THE ISSUE OF SELF DEFEWSE , RIVD THE SIME FAILED TO DISCLOSE SUCH EVIDEWCE 10 THE APPLICA, AUD Ith, Rivera VlEA WAS UMIWTELLIGENT.. Div THE FF CIRCUIT ERR IM DEFERKING IW HIS OPAWION DENYING /1e. RIVERA IN PROCEDUKAL GkouMDS A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALAILITY (con) That COVAICS with THE SUPKELIE CovRT CASES AT LAW ? |