Whether the order of the court of appeals denying a certificate of appealability should be reversed and remanded

QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the order of the court of appeals denying a certificate of appealability should be reversed and remanded, because it is manifestly incorrect to suggest that no reasonable jurist could disagree with the district court’s conclusions: a. That the government did not violate petitioner’s due process rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), by nondisclosure of material information concerning the principal prosecution witness and by failing to correct false trial testimony of which it had or should have had knowledge; and b. That Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing Proceedings Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, making appointment of counsel mandatory when an evidentiary hearing is granted, allows the court to refuse to reconsider a defendant’s waiver of such counsel after new developments, months prior to the scheduled hearing, lead the defendant to seek withdrawal of the initial waiver. i LIST OF ALL PARTIES The caption of the case in this Court contains the names of all parties (petitioner Georgiou and respondent United States). There were no co-defendants at trial and no co-appellants. ii