Whether a Court of Appeals' denial of a certificate of appealability conflicts with this Court's rulings in Vasquez v. Hillery and Miller-El v. Cockrell, where the district court determined that ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims were exhausted even though the federal claims included robust and disturbing factual allegations as compared to the state court claims whose factual allegations were sparse and qualitatively neutral

QUESTION PRESENTED Mr. Mileham claimed in state postconviction proceedings that trial counsel had been ineffective in advising Mr. Mileham respecting whether to waive a jury trial, in failing to request a hearing on whether Mr. Mileham was competent to stand trial, and in failing to object to the imposition of consecutive sentences on several counts of conviction. The only supporting factual allegations were that trial counsel had failed to advise Mr. Mileham that he would be facing a life sentence, that trial counsel “was informed of my mental state and that I had recently attempted suicide,” and that trial counsel had failed to object to the imposition of consecutive sentences on certain counts of conviction. D. Ct. Dkt. 19-2 at 178. In federal habeas proceedings, Mr. Mileham sought relief based on related claims but which included robust and disturbing allegations of fact never presented to the state courts—including particularized allegations of a long and troubling history of suicidality, alcoholism, and psychiatric hospitalizations. The question presented is: Whether a Court of Appeals’ denial of a certificate of appealability conflicts with this Court’s rulings in Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254, 260 (1986), and Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003), where the district court determined that ineffective assistance of counsel claims were exhausted even though the federal claims included robust and disturbing i factual allegations as compared to the state court claims whose factual allegations were sparse and qualitatively neutral. ii