Was Mr. Loper denied the right to a fair trial and the effective-assistance-of-counsel

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Was Mr. Loper denied the right to a fair trial and the effective assistance of counsel when his trial attorney failed to investigate readily available exculpatory evidence, inter alia, and thus failed to subject the prosecution's case to meaning adversarial testing? 2. Given the fundamental nature of the effective assistance of counsel, and its ability to ensure a fair trial, does appellate counsel have a responsibility to raise such an issue by whatever procedure is necessary — especially absent their client’s ability to raise the issue? 3. Does appellate counsel’s failure to raise clearly meritorious claims, absent the client's ability to raise them, constitute ineffective assistance of counsel? 4. Does a Court’s refusal to consider said claims, when they were raised at the earliest possible opportunity, deny a defendant the right to at least one review, the right to a redress for his grievances, and/or the right to due process? a. Relatedly, doesn't Coleman provide an exception for any procedural default arising out of such a situation? b. If not, does Martinez provide an exception? 5. Does a Court's refusal to grant counsel to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, at the first opportunity to raise such a claim, cross constitutional . boundaries? 6. Was it a denial of the right to provide a defense when the prosecution didn't narrow down the time of the alleged offense in the charging document? Did he leave the document over vague when a narrower time frame was available? 7. Was a certificate of appealability improperly denied?