If a habeas petitioner seeks to expand a previously granted COA on a petition that was denied for procedural reasons, is it necessary for him to make another, separate showing of the denial of a constitutional right?

Questions Presented Mr. Cassidy raised a claim of actual innocence to excuse the untimeliness of his § 2254 petition, relying upon his military documents not presented at trial to undermine the credibility of the alleged victim. The District Court denied the petition as untimely, but granted a certificate of appealability (“COA”) on issues unrelated to actual innocence. Petitioner filed a motion to enlarge the COA to include actual innocence with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In denying his request, Circuit Judge Barbara Lagoa found (1) that since Petitioner's evidence was known at the time of trial, then it was not “new” to support a claim of actual innocence, and (2) that he failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. As such, this case presents two questions for this Court's consideration: 1. If a habeas petitioner seeks to expand a previously granted COA on a petition that was denied for procedural reasons, is it necessary for him to make another, separate showing of the denial of a constitutional right? 2. For a habeas petitioner raising actual innocence under McQuiggin v. Perkins,} to by-pass the AEDPA’s 1 year statute of limitations, does the “new evidence” rule articulated in Schulp v. Delo,? require the evidence to be newly discovered after trial, or can the petitioner rely upon evidence known about at the time of trial, but was not presented to the jury due to the ineffective assistance of counsel? ' 569 U.S. 383 (2013) 2 513 U.S. 298 (1995) ; ii