Was the real question before the court counsel's effectiveness?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED AFTER PETITIONER MADE A SUBSTANTIAL SHOWING OF A DENIAL OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT; SEK MILLER-EL V COCKRELL, 537 U.S. 322,336 (2003) HE WAS GRANTED BY THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL, FIFTH CIRCUIT, A CERTIFICATE OF APPEABILITY UNDER 28 U.S.C.§ 2253, WHERE THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, FIFTH CIRCUIT: WENT OUTSIDE CONGRESS INTENT UNDER 28U.S.C.§2253 AND FAILED TO GRANT PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BY APPLYING THE INCORRECT RULE OF LAW, THAT WOULD CLEARLY BE DEBATABLE AMONG JURISTS OF REASON AND CONTRARY TO UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HOLDING IN UNLTED STATES V_CRONIC, 466 U.S. 648, 104 S.CT.2039, 80 L.ED.2D 657 (1984). WAS THE REAL QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT COUNSEL'S EFFECTIVENESS? WHERE PETITIONER'S COUNSEL DECIDED TO TAKE OFF FROM A CRITICAL STAGE, WAS NOT PRESENT AT PETITIONER'S SENTENCE, THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL DETERMINE PETITIONER HAD EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, APPLYING STRICKLAND VS WASHINGTON, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S,CT.2052, 80 LED.2D 674 (1984) WHERE PETITIONER'S COUNSEL DECIDED TO NOT ATTEND SENTENCING PROCEEDING, WAS NOT PRESENT AT A CRITICAL STAGE OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, STRICKLAND COULD NOT BE THE CORRECT STANDARD TO DETERMINE WHETHER PETITIONER WAS CONSTRUCTIVELY DENIED COUNSEL. PETITIONER REQUEST IN PROTECTION OF HIS PRO SE 6th and 14th AMENDMENT(s) RIGHT THAT HIS “WRIT OF CERTIORARI” BE GRANTED AND THE STATE OF LOUISIANA NOR THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL, FIFTH CIRCUIT BE ALLOWED TO DEPRIVE ANYONE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COUNSEL AT A CRITICAL STAGE. u