Did the Fifth Circuit err in denying Lopez's COA on his speedy-trial-violation, due-process, ineffective-assistance-of-counsel, and false-testimony claims?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED : 1. In Petitioner's COA, Lopez challenged the U.S. District Court's adjudication of his claims that::(1) he is actually innocent; (2) he did not receive a "live" evidentiary hearing before the State Habeas Court (nor federal); (3) his speedy trial rights were violated (9 yeas plus months delay); (4) he recei ed ineffective assistance of counsel; (5) the state withheld material exculpatory evidence concerning a co-defendants plea bargain; (6) his Due Process rights were violated when witnesses for the state testified falsely. ' Lopez also added a new claim to his COA that the state trial court abused ” discretion in admitting certain picture evidence in violation of the Texas . ’ rule of evidence. , The..question is, did the Fifth Circuit err in denying Lopez's COA, especialy with his speedy trial violation, when he has a Constitutional Right to: Speedy Trial, Due Process, Right to Effective Counsel, Right to Evidentiary ' Hearing, and the Right not to have false testimony used against him by the State?** : 2. Petitioner Lopez was found guilty of Capital Murder by a jury based on false testimony at trial; the question is can Lopez still make a Innocence Claim and prove it with trial testimony offered by the victim of the Crime that someone other than Lopez murdered his brother? ; 3. Has the Right to Speedy Trial been annuled nation wide? Which explains why lower courts are now indifferent towards 6 & 14 Ammendment. Or is Lopez nine years plus months a violation of speedy trial?” 4. Is it lawful for the state to lie on purposeto a jury of a co-defendant's plea agreement? 5. Is it lawful for the state to use a perjured witness and false testimony to support a conviction, knowlingly? . * See, Farmer v. McBride, 2004 U.S, Dist. LEXIS 29629 (S.D. W.Va 2004), writ granted because of numerous Due Process errors. ** See, Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003), COA does not require petitioner to prove that he is entitled to relief. + Lopez is pro se and not a legal scholar, therefore he has been unable to articulate a substantial showing of denial of speedy trial to this date. Lopez has attached in support the legal Arguements of attorney Wendell A. ou Jr. for the right’ to speedy trial to use in this claim. See