Did the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit abuse its discretion and commit an error of law in not issuing a Certificate of Appealability and in denying Mr. Gates' Habeas Corpus Petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 on his criminal conviction, since there was a substantial showing of the denial of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel and his Fifth Amendment right to due process, and there were debatable issues and there was a substantial showing of the denial of his constitutional rights pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. 2253(c)(2)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1) Did the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit abuse its discretion and commit an error of law in not issuing a Certificate of Appealability and in denying Mr. Gates’ Habeas Corpus Petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 on his criminal conviction, since there was a substantial showing of the denial of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel and his Fifth Amendment right to due process, and there were debatable issues and there was a substantial showing of the denial of his constitutional rights pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. 2253(©)Gi) as follows: 1) Failure of trial counsel to interview or present any character witnesses and the reason was the lawyer did not believe a crime had been committed and the lawyer did not believe character witness’ testimony had any value. 2) Failure to give an opening statement without any good tactical or strategic reason not to and then becomes confused when attempting to give the opening right before the closing speech without any valid reason to delay the opening. 3) Failure to interview, subpoena, or call any factual witness and the failure to have any witness testify who could have refuted the government’s case without any good reason not to present such witnesses. 4) Failure to provide the government in advance of trial Mr. Gates’ outside work authorization ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED -— Continued which could have been used to refute testimony of the government’s witness and could have been presented if provided to the government in advance.