Did the United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit misapply the ruling in Miller-El v. Cockrell?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED ) (14) Did the United States. Court of Appeals Second Circuit ‘misapplied the ruling in Miller-El v. Cockrell, in denial of petitioner’s claims? Using conclusory terms and by merely stating, “Petitioner did : not show a substantial showing of a Constitutional Right. “Where the ; rule announced by United States Supreme Court in Mi/ler-E/ Vv. : Cockrell is, “petitioner satisfied this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could conclude the issues presented are adequate to ; ; deserves encouragement to proceed further. ” Slack Vv. McDaniel. (2) Did the United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit Misapplied the standard in relation to petitioner's Prosecutorial . Misconduct claim? Where the petitioner’s Traverse has been unopposed. 7 there by conceded to the facts therein. Where the prosecutor knew or should have known that its witnesses gave false and misleading , testimony from the grand jury, pre-trial and trial. Fernandez v. Capra, 916 F. 3d 215, 230-31, (2019). Shih Wei Su v. Filion, 335 F.3d 119, 126 | (2003); and. failed to correct it when it appeared, Dubose v. Lefevre, : : 619 F.2d 973, 978, (2d Cir. 1980), and violated “the petitioner’s Constitutional Right under the 14th Amendment. Did the United States . Court of Appeals Second Circuit Misapplied the standard in Miller-E/ v. ; Cockrell in denial of petitioner's COA in-relation to his Judicial 4 Misconduct claim? Where the District Court failed to address the ~~ . “ judicial misconduct (Bias) claim, Liteky V. United States, 510 U.S. 540, . 555, 1148.Ct. 1147 (1994), Withrow V. Larkins, 421 U.S. 35, 47, 95 . : 5.Ct. 1456, 1464, (1975),in the Petition/Appellant Traverse and reply motion the trial the judge was actually bias and prejudiced the , petitioner in his decision this act threw the scales of justice (due , process of law) out of balance and imbued the petitioner with : substantial prejudice. Williams v. Pennsylvania, 136 S.Ct. 1899, 1905 : (2016). : f (3) The district court adopted the pre-trial judge’s decision ; order of the probable cause hearing, where the pre-trial judge misstated the facts of the record, and rendering the district court fact finding | Srocess unreasonable; a violation of the petitioner’s 14th Amendment. : ; Wiggins v. Smith, 123 S.Ct. 2538-39 (2003); Harris v. Kuhlman, 345 F.3d 350-351 (2nd Cir, 2003); ‘Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992 (9t» Cir. | ; 2004), which a jurists of reason could find debatable, announced mm Slack v McDantel’s jurists of reason standard raised in petitioner’s COA? : (5) Did the United States District Court and the United States ; Court of Appeals Second Circuit Misapplied the standard in denial of ; petitioner’s ineffective assistance claim Strickland v Washington 466 7 ; US. 688, 687-88, (1984). Rompilla v. Beard, 124 S.Ct. 2456, 2467,(2005), . and the conflict of interests announced in the ruling in U.S. v. Perez, . 325 F.3d 115 (24 Cir, 2008).