Whether the United States and a pattern of utilizing an erroneous certificate of appealability is the only appropriate remedy, where petitioners have never had the benefit of a merits review by any court due to an incorrect procedure

QUESTIONS) PRESENTED oe AI). WRIT. OF MANDAMUS LS THE ONLY ARPROPRIATE REMEDY, WHERE THE UNTIED STATES AND PATTERN OF UTILEZING AN ERRONEOUS CERTCETCATE OF WHOM NEVER HAD THE BENEEXT OF A MERITS REvrEW By Any Cour, [DUE ToANINconaecT FRocepuaewn|, ——_-_(A).Uthere, 0 Vobens Optitioners predicates melts Evidence and Fackuel developmentiof their _Lanstitutionol Clair Submitted For 381.5.G59365 Relief hove never been mode Sorte the —_.._ Record and Essentially Sucpeessed From view, itis Impossible For bien _“Aubbstestial Showing of TheDeniol of a, Constitutional Right Codified within A8US6§9953(O.Butsee Sack y ridanre 539 US 473 ot'484 (Clarifying te! COR Standard Under $2253 Fer halnens beditioners _——---_Aevied on Proceducol grounds without the, Court Neaching the Undertying Constitutional clei) _—_— (8) Duing dre. last Decode, (1oyeasd) the Eleventh Circuit Couck of Aepealsover threednusdted ond | _-_ ——-~ Santp theae. (348) Tienes to include snsgords the instonk Mandamus Petitioneghas alleged thot SUK ——-—__— SPAS arhTB Shotess tl . To merit a certificate of appealability { petitioners_] anyst show:that reasonable jurists-would find —-—— debatable both (1) the merits of anumedertying claim pr {2ythe procedural issues that he-seeks te _ __to raise. Seé 28 U.S.C4§ 2253(6)(2): Slack v.. McDaniel, 52948:S), 473,478, 120 S. Ct. 1595, ' 1600-01, 146 L. Ed. 2d'$42 (2000).'See Appennexe” ee! oe me : —~——-——tehen clearly SLACK SI USAT bas no mentite, up00 THE MERCTS OF AM UNDERLYING CLARA ie _. an 1529 US 478] . it i . . tat Fes, whew 5 sci Cures petitioner socks to initiate an appeat of the dismissalefa j ne ahens SOMpUS patitianacies Agsil 2, 1996 (the effective date ‘of AEDPA), the right 10 appeal = « 1 ‘govuroad by the cenit. << appentediliny (CDA) requiremems now found et 28 USC § 225%c) i es INE Od, Supp HI] [28 USE § 22SMEI]. This is tove whether the habeas corpus petition was ‘fed in the district con define at fist AEDPA's effective date. [st Sccond. who: the Uisrict coon denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds witoa a a ercrneres emeer—ecin, poaching the prisumnes undering cnadiutaynal claim, a COA should issue (and an appeal of the — . . ‘Peat coun's onttor iv be taker) i121 prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find to . it debortable whether the peti states a walks claim of the denial of a cunctituional right, end thet : rrr enraaaecccenes semarammene, th uF reason wat Ht i) bute whether the district court way correct in ts proce) nn on AA i Be ae ce nee ae eee ee va Us1{4a] Third, 9a 2.4 tituin hich & filed oRer an initia’ petition was dismissed wRDOR ee te eae ee : -tiudication on the meg tor fdas: i ettoust state remevties & aul 3 “eewond oF success” TI mene Srmarmarens ee as esate canes a cuae sas ceas ses Putidoner Anus Susi owas convicted of secomldegres murder in Nevada state court in TTT Tt bee eee weclanes nenee ee Sore sees 199G, His direct ayzc! tea eswctssetit. On November 27, 1991, Stack filed a petition for writ of habeas comus fn fe..saf couet ender 2X USC § 2254 (28 USCS § 2254]. Early in the federal ee eee cee ne tee ae cane cect ete PI ne ES ee em emens nes wae wees cae se amagan = certs ssmanoe peneeeding, Slack docive ve iafests chins he haul not yet presented 10 the Nevada courts. He yom ad . could not raise the eling in fever! enum because, under the exhaustion of remedics fee a ‘eiplained in Rose v Lundy, 28% US H9. Ft L Ed 2d 379, 102 S Ct 1498 (1982), 2 Seder! Soon * ven eee eee reese ce eet ee eee ee ante te ee oe tase PT mene ee scence ca nea cin samen ne ne = seme aa eyed to diamie peicin prowesing lois ov et Ktiged + 1 meg mete we ote BS that would not only be o Fundamentally Unto but also holly Erreneous(*Con) Standard —. sonar Gd ONAWSIS, See, BUCK VI DAVES I3TS.ch 54 TLEA aA Cao Stating, --; +s, The'certificate of appealability (COA) inquiry is not coextensive with a merits analysis. At the COA stage, .. cm . the only question is whether the applicant has shown that