Whether petitioner's Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and a fundamentally fair trial were denied

No question identified. : | , . ' Prilod 4 id sas to caselaw Leos Unibed States Couck af Aopents ciccurks other Neds Ciecss we bs oli \ N ee lomied his Kiesk Q . Ciglok te Meaningful access +5 the courts Ushere he lhnaped C C A, heciston. 4 Cie us question | Cie . = _ State cove} of last resachs andfoc tas so fac clecached fooen this Couctls supecuisony powece : ui . G d “om “ic Ciceuit brea si wenmaci\y denier) pet \Monec's. application foe j "OA tsi Le Y soq_brie€ & bids ; a \ pe kiki 0 auld | re been alle +c brief Hoes L hod he led c eos Ge COR Low Niet Ciceuit deni . O sdormti Ce \ \ / his Fo a Q \ a iz Doe P Cond bel Eat demiet OT 3 sonore def | \ te dae J oo. sescld ¢ bership ok cial aad posh — canvictiag counse| Stotec\ petitions DOS, Severely tudieod we bake ‘nol roock Launch 4 we Aid nat demonsteote prejudice as pec Sackland v. Wwaslaingtan ,_ _ Yolo U.S. G62, (022 C1984), aod tsnece Hoe Nevada Sopmme —__ Conc _9fRcened thot fading, and tabece toe federn\ diskeick —___ court fanacd Phot +cial counsel did ack provide inebheckiye elective assistance of counsel? identification af pelitionec ok trial thronge a usdéness called lass ne prosecution afer that ywikness could nok identify _ _ te Due. Pricess Clause oF boo Fourteenth Amendment, _ Supreme Covck could mensooobly have concluded “nad Hye 2Ctor! Khe Nit Crccuid . | application fac certificate of appealability ; were VPeditinner's Fourteen, Ameniment cigints Ae Due Orcess Denied ¢ 5. tWhece the Stoke presented aob-oF coock pattness ___Siniemeots, tolbicl that toitn ess Cecaaked ok tefal, as _ nods -y. vended! Viewed Gy ppeal of tne conviction Look 5 same. Viclated Wis Six tn Arnendmeat Ciclot to conFmot cusitmesses 300 Inis Foockee oth A Doe P igok 4 a Lally Sie teio! ; Lhe Niakle Cicenit denied petit: \ $ Genki ___ foc COA, Astere pedo ects Sx\y anc Foockreembis Amendment —_cigloks_vialabed SN . Super @ = a { Ss mmaci| ret checd Lis eloic a Vicon’ \ wr Bae Lodeca\ distcic: me hot the eGrence canid hove refecred ts a _qraed suey, one . Cognck eaoold have reasenaloli Gancludecl that dhe Prosecutec’s _ inoduecbent menlian aC a pric pon teil, aad “ne witness's fundamentally unGic, and tine Ninth Carcwit denied COA Were petitioner's Fouctsentin Anenment rights te _ Doe Pescoss_ood_o Gondmnentally foie trial chemied¢ _ —_tnsbruckioas2 : . e , ' ee life ala 4 bet “c) Wai \ . Ho Vded i : ‘ | smakion te K\\e Aiskinehlu & \ ia & “nd Yoo Cie kik even a minute. cb onal be_as ‘agloatoneaus as successive Jo cudats ab Sno omiod. For if ho joc —— i; C n “4 Phot 4) Gols tne ack Silas tne premeditation, it is_promedibated’s nc 06 Nn proffered oO eltennate ‘tnskcucHian, eppellabe eounse | _ so Salaky ae CLG. Te A cade af Hae iw C iy is . eck: Coll ide a, « nen yak wick “ols C tne des! C4 \ i . 6 reasonable clovlek. Dalek be be ceasmnalbble mos pe aed ohere the Gadem\ Sietetek eosck fone Mretthe Preludice, aod slnece We Ninkls Cleewit Aid mek gener _ _ Aeetive Assistance of Conse acc Foucteanth Amendmenk