Whether Cortificate of APPEALABILETY SHOULD HAVE BREA GeenTen?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED A) Whether Cortificate of APPEALABILETY SHOULD HAVE BREA GeenTen? QD. WHETHER DUE Peecess WAS VIolATED WHEN COUNSEL FALLEN TO AkOQuEST LESSER CNCLUDED ZNsTeucTIONs 2 3). WAgTKER DUE PRocess was violaren WHEN TRIAL Counsed! __ uy, ails To OBNECT TO REMARKS oF MulDECEL AT HEAT Dueuic nEAolVeordud-Feuk Where Counsel's FAILURE TO OBSEcT TO REMARKS AT CLIOSTIL HAPS SURSTAUTIAL AUD SNSubtous EM Ger THAT DFluBuCED THE Dudet!: DererndnArTions 2 WHETHER Due Placess wAs Vielarepa WHEN PETITIONERS EO TIRE B) weet Wks Posted EN THE NEWS PAPEL After and dastrral The. A’ 3c Trial Held 2 b . WHETHEZ Due PRoceSS Wes violares UlHEN A 3h DEGREE > FelomwS << GNHAKCED Fon, &tlo VERS TO 25+ 49 Yetds « 2D. WkeTHee T EXAS ENHAMCEMENT LAU VIBLATES DOURBUE SY ESOAADY AND “TRE ULS. CoMSTLTUTIO/) DUE PRacesS, Guarentze 2 | WETHER TEXAS AFED@mMATIVE FIENDINGILAW IN VAGUE 8) ANS UNCONSTETUTIOUAL Whites LT AUboWS A N62 ~ AGGRAVATES QOEFENSE TO BE Governed RV AGGRAVATED SENTENCING \ GUIDELINES 2 | , rt _ WHETHER Due PAscess was VeslaTEN Wie Frlekem | Ther WAS DISMISSES AS PACT OFA PLEA AGREEMENT aL TREY USES Th A SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDING ” EBvipece Amd te ORTAIN AFFIRMATIVE FXNDLMG Ths AADTHER. CouwTY ¢ an 1). WHETHER THE FLFTH CIRCUIT SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED A PLAIN. ERROR PEVITEW ; 1), WHETHER URTST bE AgASoN KouLD FIND ALL CLAIVAS PRESENTER O@ Avy CLAIVGS PRESENTED To THE Lowe® . Coukts DEBATABLE EVA AUZS NoT ADIMESSEA BY the BCH CituxzT 2 0 tattee . _