Where the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia concluded that reasonable jurists could disagree on the fundamental legal principle at issue in the underlying habeas petition, did that court's denial of a Certificate of Appealability (COA) (and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit's sanctioning thereof through summary affirmance on appeal), ignoring this Court's clear and precedential standard for the issuance of the COA, so far depart from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings with respect to the doctrine of stare decisis and adherence to this Court's rulings precedent as to call for an exercise of this Court's supervisory power under Supreme Court Rule 10(a)?

QUESTION PRESENTED Where the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia concluded that reasonable jurists could disagree on the fundamental legal principle at issue in the underlying habeas petition, did that court’s denial of a Certificate of Appealability (COA) (and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s sanctioning thereof through summary affirmance on appeal), ignoring this Court’s clear and precedential standard for the issuance of the COA, so far depart from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings with respect to the doctrine of stare decisis and adherence to this Court’s rulings precedent as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power under Supreme Court Rule 10(a)? ii PARTIES The names of the parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page, however, Warden John Walrath is the nominal respondent for the Commonwealth of Virginia in whose custody petitioner remains pursuant to a_ presently presumptively valid felony conviction and sentence of imprisonment in this matter. CORPORATE DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 29.6 and 14.1(b) petitioner submits that there is no parent, private or publicly held corporation or other entity with any interest in this matter or its outcome.