Whether the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals approach and practice in the Certificate of Appealability (COA) context are significantly out of step with binding Supreme Court law, raising due-process, access-to-court

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED (i) DOHETHER THE ELEVENTH CracuxT Court OF APPEALS AppRoacH AND practrce . TIN THE CEATE RZ (COA) CONTEXT ARE SCGNERECANTLY "OUT OF STEP LAZTH BXNDENG SUPREME Court Laud, RATSING DUE PROCESS AND =~ ACCESS TO THE Count CONCERNS, LOHERE EmpreacaL DATA AND RECENT STUDEES DEmonstaATE THAT NON-CAPETAL PAXSONERS In OTHER CrACurTs ARE 69% More Likely To GET A CEATERECATE OF ARPEALABELETY THAN NON CApETAL (3). WoHeTHER THe. ELEVENTH Cracuxt Court OF APPEALS CommETTED EAROR In Denyxve THE Haseas/§ 2388 Movanr A CCoA) To APPEAL THE. DENTAL OF Hrs FED.R. cav.p 60 Lode) Metron To REOPEN LOHERE: | A. The movants Constitutional Claim alleging Word For Word © ; | “Axel Was Denied his Constitutional Right to EF Ractive Assistance of . Counsel shen Cattorney ] Failed to Property Litigate Petitioners ) | : | Fours Amandenent Claim. His Feilure 4 cite Contesting Preadent, Encomperenthy Puting hen Falsities From an Artest Affidavit And not the afFidavit For the Search Wattant Coupled with his . Failure 40 Reckify the mistake. and Present Further Evidence. By . Filing an Agreed upon FRANKS HEARENG Were. inviolostion of His , “Sixth amendenent Rights, a Shades eaValid Claim for the denial of his Constitutional Rights in Accord: ‘With enomelen env. Morrison 477 ws 2365, lo6s.ch SHORE) Clearly , Satishjng ; the Substantive. Prong, of Slax vv MecDoniel SOA US.4TSNEM 205.c i545, (2008) : and, ) mu : B. The District Courts legal premise For Denying +hemovants Rule bo(nyé> : notion Stating Word or Word . 7 “This noon As Simply Another atemer to relitigate issues that were or . ) ; Should hove. already ON presented tothe State Court,this Courtjand brought before the Eleventh circuit Court oF Appeals for fesclution, is in Ditect disregard of Binding Supreme Court law Gonzalez: v.crosby,5HS ws. te 7, : | | 594,589 1955.ch 964i (anos) and Buck v. Davis (315.4184, 7742017), Cleatly = I SatisFying the Second prong of Slack v.McPe sel S34 UsHTaME 2 S.c+ 159 a ] eXolicitiy Hat The wshole Pucpose of Rule bole is fp make’ an exception | | foGinatiny’ 2 ; | le HETHER LT Ls Conreary To THe PLarn TasuTons fexr OF d8uU,S.c $9053 lc | oF a Tame Fene.cev.? 600010 Moncon To REOPEN THE PRocepupal. DEFECT | . THE. PETRTXONERS PRoPEQLy PRESERVED OBTECTrON Nv THE Co AAs BE-Lo _ | Paovenret 6: WHERE Hrs Taue FeD.e.cov.p 60le 6) Motron Does:.Nor ATIACK L _ it Te. CONVECTZON of SENTENCE Bur RaTHE A ProceDuan D NT ! HABEAS / OB1A.S.¢ $25 PROCEED: OR WHECY D> PS: me FINA oRpes" a | , : | . LI Sn | ee a a iv ,