Whether the Ninth Circuit's refusal to address the uncertified Cronic claim despite a strong showing of per se ineffective assistance constituted an improper de facto denial of a COA contrary to Miller-El v. Cockrell

QUESTION PRESENTED Petitioner alleged that his conviction and death sentence were caused by per se ineffective assistance under United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984), because counsel deliberately sabotaged his defense at trial, conceded his guilt of capital murders during closing argument, and failed to prepare or present any mitigation at penalty. Petitioner appealed the denial of his Cronic claim even though the District Court did not grant a certificate of appealability (COA). Did the Ninth Circuit’s refusal to address the uncertified Cronic claim despite a strong showing of per se ineffective assistance constitute an improper de facto denial of a COA contrary to Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003)? i