Whether the First Circuit applied a novel, harsher standard for issuing a certificate of appealability, denying due process and effective assistance of conflict-free counsel

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW This petition presents published comments by the First Circuit Court of Appeal which cause the reasonable person to question the neutrality and fairness of the court’s denial of Petitioner’s Motion for Certificate of Appealability (COA). The unsettling comments by the First Circuit can be found in its prior published opinion, affirming Petitioner’s conviction and sentence on direct appeal, where the court prominently noted Petitioner’s exercise of his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial: Blood is often thicker than water. Unlike dozens of others who entered guilty pleas ... Ayala [Petitioner’s co-defendant and brother] and Cruz hunkered down and stood trial together. They were both convicted, and each received a life sentence. United States v. Angel Ayala Vazquez and Luis X Cruz Vazquez, 751 F.3d 1, 6 (Ast Cir. 2014), emphasis added. Explicitly, the First Circuit found it necessary to underscore Petitioner’s rejection of a plea agreement and election to exercise his absolute right to trial, unconditionally assured by Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 363 (1978). Therefore, this petition respectfully asks that this Court exercise its supervisory power to provide guidance to lower courts in the application of the standard for issuance of a certificate of appealability and the unquestioned right to protection against any hint of punitive judicial retaliation for exercising the right to trial. With this as backdrop, the questions for review are: lll 1. In refusing to issue a COA, did the First Circuit apply a novel, harsher standard requiring Petitioner to prove actual intent by conflicted counsel to harm another client, thereby denying Cruz Vazquez his Fifth Amendment right to due process and his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of conflict-free counsel in violation of Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (1988); Mickens v. Taylor, 5385 U.S. 162 (2002); and, United States v. DeCologero, 530 F.3d 36, 77 (1st Cir.2008)? 2. Did the First Circuit depart from precedent when it ignored that Cruz Vazquez was denied effective assistance of counsel, where his counsel abandoned a readily-available multiple conspiracy defense, failed to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, and then conceded guilt, instead of invoking the “supermarket” multiple conspiracy defense recognized in United States v. Dellosantos, 649 F.3d 109, 121 (1st Cir. 2011)? 3. Waving off the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause, did the First Circuit ignore this Court’s precedent by blessing the district court’s open bias in summarily denying Cruz Vazquez’s well-grounded, critical Brady! requests, where unchallenged facts in the 2255 demonstrated a palpable pattern of Brady violations by the government’s Puerto Rico office? 4. Did the First Circuit’s refusal to issue a certificate of appealability unconstitutionally permit a prejudicial denial of Cruz Vazquez’s right to effective assistance at sentencing, where even the Government admitted that trial counsel waived the issue when it totally "failed to provide evidence to support [a] sentencing disparity contention prior to or at sentencing" in a case where the district court imposed a life sentence? 1 [Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1968).]