Is the Ninth Circuit's denial of a COA on Hoang's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim contrary to this Court's jurisprudence?

QUESTION PRESENTED This Court has repeatedly held that to receive a certificate of appealability (‘COA’), a habeas petitioner need only show that “jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Buck v. : Davis, 137 8. Ct. 759, 773 (2017). Petitioner’s trial counsel improperly insisted Hoang testify at : trial and that he testify falsely. He coerced Hoang to testify by yelling at him and telling him it was the only way he could avoid going to jail, despite knowing that the proposed testimony was not true. The district court and the Ninth Cireuit refused to grant a COA for Petitioner’s . ineffective assistance of counsel claim, despite the fact that the claim . was not subject to 28 US.C. § 2254(d) ani despite the fact that had | Hoang testified truthfully, there is a reasonable probability of a better . outcome. : Is the Ninth Circuit’s denial of a COA on Hoang’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim contrary to this Court’s jurisprudence? ' PARTIES AND LIST OF PRIOR PROCEEDINGS The parties to this proceeding are Petitioner Hung Linh Hoang and Respondent Raymond Madden. The California Attorney General represents Respondent. Hoang was convicted by jury in the Orange County Superior Court on July 14, 2004 in People v. Hung Linh Hoang, case no. O83WF 1095, Judge : Richard Toohey, presiding. Judgment was entered against. Hoang on October 29, 2004, Clerk’s Transcript, district court docket 49, lodgment 2, at 188-93, 265-67. | The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment on appeal in an ; unpublished opinion filed on April 28, 2006 in People v. Hoang, case no. 60347 7 9, Petitioner's