Whether the ruling of the court of appeals for the third circuit is contrary to clearly established federal law

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. WHETHER THE RULING OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT IS CONTRARY TO CLEARLY ESTABLISHED FEDERAL LAW WHERE THE COURT FAILED TO GRANT A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY ON A CLAIM THAT JURIST OF REASON COULD CLEARLY FIND DEBATABLE? 2. WHETHER THE POST-CONVICTION RELIEF (PCR) COURT'S GRANTING OF PETITIONER'S PCR, AND SUBSEQUENT REVERSAL OF ITS OWN DECISION, AND THEN THE NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT'S REVERSAL OF THE PCR COURT'S DECISION TO REVERSE ITSELF CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT JURISTS OF REASON COULD FIND PETITIONER’S CLAIM DEBATABLE? 3. WHETHER THE PETITIONER MADE A SUBSTANTIAL SHOWING OF THE DENIAL OF HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, WHICH JURISTS OF REASON COULD CLEARLY FIND DEBATABLE? i ii