Whether the United States District Court for the District of Idaho erred in denying the petitioner's motion for counsel on post-conviction appeal

QUESTIONS PRESENTED, ps 114 : ro Revised 3/24/16 AL TAMIL OR 589 U.S. 480 ANS UL. ea ad 4as, (a0 3.8. 1474 C2000) ANDO &. AASCUA(L) (a) (3) PR WE OTSNELET oF LOAN (EReen) er EFAICSIG TO GRATT RECIEF QVETO On STCONWICTIOn) APOCUATE Cro WGEL ATTORNEY, PRBANOSEMEATT OC WR(EUTS) AGPEAL OF THOMAS 150A 5.07 AID, ADY C aod) oa O, (VY) 100 THE on IETED STASES OLS CORT Far — THE Opsmeicr of TOA (ERED) ON OENDIG TWE. OPTTTMoude mMR(EUWTS) Motion’ Gok COwWSEC (Q).01.0 THE UNITED <QaTES OLSNRIO COURT RR Revised 3/24/16 | VAIO \ ‘ AN AW) va) lo Oo ~V\Av 2 an AN a | (3) 2OTO THE UntlTED STATES OLSnSIO CooRerT FoR We OISVRISA of TOAWO(ERREDNI BY | on WO. STAN. WIG. CEDERAL AREAS PRocesmJes _ TO RETURA) TO STATE CO west AND PROREY * . NO A, AW AO © HR) BD One supBIT TW | RULIES Vy WEBER SSW U.S, ACA O61 Ed aA NWO ADS 4.¢7, 199.8 (2009), ; x1 OLSDELA TOAVo (ERRED DEINE THE PETIMIOUEL WA (TS) MOT) TO WEAK AYA AnM) 92. BY THE BOTTOM Except. THE OLSTRISK oF “TOANO(ERPED) A EN TIS Wa: ETITIONKE mR (UTS) KE PLE LUSTE OF WAPPEAUBRSISTM™M, Patt ve . Revised 3/24/16