Whether the standard for determining if an underlying constitutional claim is 'substantial' under Martinez v. Ryan is the same as the standard for obtaining a Certificate of Appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)

QUESTION PRESENTED The Court of Appeals granted a Certificate of Appealability (COA) on Freddie Owens’s constitutional claim that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel by counsel’s failure to investigate, develop, and present evidence of structural and functional brain damage, based on a finding that the claim was substantial under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). The Court of Appeals then found the same claim not to be substantial when denying Mr. Owens a first opportunity to have the merits of his claim considered through the _ exception § established in Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012). This case presents the two following questions: 1. What is the standard to be used by federal courts of appeals for determining whether the underlying constitutional claim is “substantial” under Martinez, and how does it relate to the determination that a _ petitioner has met the requirements to obtain a COA, under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and as described by this Court in Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003)? 2.Under the Martinez standard, is it proper for courts of appeals determining the substantial quality of the underlying constitutional claim to rely on an imbalanced consideration of the record, including ignoring evidence in the record in support of a petitioner’s underlying constitutional claim—as happened in Mr. Owens’s case?