Whether the United States Court of Appeal for the Eleventh Circuit erred by unreasonably determining the facts based on a misreading of the state records and, by failing to substantiate their opinion with decisional law?

QUESTION PRESENTED . In denying a certificate of appealability, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit published a twenty-one (21) page opinion. . One of the issues — IV (f), at p. 14 (“Failure to Object to Prosecutor’s Allusions to Mr. Castro’s Silence”) — involves a violation of the due process clause that was underscored as a result of a violation of the right to effective assistance of counsel. See: Castro v. Sec’y Dept. of Corrections, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 27676 (11th Cir. 2018). A second issue — V (a), at p. 16 (“Exclusion of Post-Arrest Statements of Remorse”) — also involves a violation of due process, to the extent that, the omission of the remorseful statements affected the fundamental fairness of the trial. See: Castro v. Sec’y Dept. of Corrections, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 27676 (11th Cir. 2018). | The United States Court of Appeal for the Eleventh Circuit, as to the first issue, unreasonably determined the facts of record and, as to the second issue, failed to substantiate a mere speculatory conclusion with any clearly established . case law. _ Consequently, this case presents the following two questions: 1). Whether the United States Court of Appeal for the Eleventh Circuit erred by unreasonably determining the facts based on a misreading of the state records and, by failing to substantiate their opinion with decisional law? 2). Whether Castro’s Constitutional rights, under the 5 and 6" Amendments, to due process of law and effective assistance of counsel were violated.