Whether the Fifth Circuit clearly erred by exceeding the limited scope of the COA analysis

No question identified. : | . | QuéSTrONS PRESENTED |: lL Wheahe the Blah Cieeudd clearly exced Poe __ Paving to consider Mr Geodta's MOud CLE AM en: Ag in Suppoct ol his clei. Hak tra) cou nsel_was | | 1 Whether-the Ffth Ciruik elearlyevced by Lex ceeding the limited scape of he CoA analysis. 4.3. Whether MC Croodis has demonsteobed | i effective, assistance ot counsel undey i dkneblard v. Washinglon, 466 u.S. 668 (1984). _ i 4, Whether the District Court 's denial of lite, Gandin's mobons to appoint coursel and foe _|lan eureeahy acy heating was aa abuse of yhoo : . ee po oe ene | leoestrons pResenTen | sb esteTroN For wREt of cegTzogaer _ LOPINTONS BELOW —YuoREsoretTEoN _listatement oF THE ASE. ___istatement of nie Facts AND PRocenuear UT\ToRY, 8 _iigeasons Foe GeANTENG THE WRIT 8 NT | ©, Cechoract Should Be Granked Because : | dhe FL Ciccuit Lmposed aa Impco 6 Te caalaly Bucdensome tod Sbesdacd shel Cakravenes This_Courkis Precedenks, Re ecks Deep Achitradness ancl Rika ; the Tudiaal ProcesS. es _. 2 s ia | i A. The Fd trceuihs Order Welding That . . oh vl Not Wave Turisdicvan te om sieler New Arguments Roried for the Fist The On Appeal, Combeavenes tas Coek's Wortdiigs fo Yee x (iy ob ! Estandide, 503-u.8, 519, 534 (1992) cgay an ne Cevind ~ Thaler, 133 Stk VAM IS | , ; i | | Evidence. Demanstvebes tra the rib i CiveusS'S Lrleroreketion ok the CoN ss piel Cetin ts Canccnvene it —§$§$£§$ | Co ths Cruidance Regarding the Application | om Reasonable Susisd Could daguiestnianably __ | | Debate Whether Law Enborcoment , _ tonducked « Warcatless Seared and _ Whether Trial Counsel Was Znedfective | Qe Failing te Move. to Suppress Evidereé__ on Wis Ground . 2 2 ee Resell Sista De hehe tear —§£$ ; Mr. Go in Wed Counsel _on IWs Poor | anwihian anal Whether Apellabe Counsel as Earle Tar Eales Challeggt $$ | te Relor Crain Eabancemend on this | EL, Denning ao Mebica te Appotad Couitel ond a She Some, Endicda of Wiable Lssu@s En i Ma { Conuuston. 2 se ENDER To APPEND ECE S __NaeEwDEK A Qomoa of the canted Shedes Oita wader 8 2255 aac taadion po Bar un evichembinay Mencing, nited Seles | v. Goodin, No 3:18 —¢Roolst-ol, 2o22 _ vs, Disb. LEXTS W469 Cw.0 La Aug, t), — — a a 5 ee a _HlArremax 8 Order of the cntled Stedes Distoed —__ | Court boy tre Weskenn distied of i Let vara _denying cod, United Stoles ———f_ —_» Geodin Wo 3218 <¢Roo/sao] __ e.g tt, 20.20) _aenorx Crier of the atked Shades Couct of i _ CoA and alicering the i ister Cours | oo deninl ob motsons to apeeiat counsel a i and tec an ewidlenbsiary Wenciog Jnited i tic Noy td 2o22), tg ! fp | AfeE wotxO ebtbinne’s Mebon Loe Reheanap ip En Baar, Snited Stedes v. Goodin, : | : No 22-30507 fled Decembe, 22, : etenoxx £ Order a ake Unthed Slabes Cou _, | clenying Releariag fa Banc, Onibed . i. _ Qlabey vi Goodin _No. 22-3056 a bh te. ton tat) sta 2datakiosot Bician TJehnion 2 Vrecker af W wrreatnos Electron [ | a . wlaccaks Audit Tratl “Uptted Sales —} baste state. 202tcal, Darah — | _ (wore) OP Hq, _ |A0PEMDTX @_ Fretdanaiel Zmbotmadidia Ack Regret toed Response. ber i ‘| TAGLE or AvTHORETLES | Cysess Page, Ho, Black... Davis, 902 3d $4/ (Sth Ci. Joi)... 2 6,7 jek. Davis, 137 9.Cb, 759( 2017). _,_.___8,21___ argc Texas, 288 a8 208 C1467) — 5 — pp agaan ve Seargelll, 44 WS. 718 ATI) «ep ern -_Halbeck v Michigan, S15 4S. oS (00S), _iithamilben v. Alabama, 368 us. 62 Ci4o)), 2 0 2S | Necring v. Estelle, 44! 2d 25 (shoe 7d). 25 _ lon ce Bucger, 448 v8, 233 C491). 2 J Machiheoda vy. United Shales, 368 vs. 487 (1962) . 0 29 -—__:enpa_v, Rhay, 28% 0.5128 (1967). 2S iM \Ner-Fl y, Cockcell, 537 us. (322 (2003). , 8 21 ‘ITeewinn y. Thaler, 133 $.ch. IAW (2013) passim iUniled Shekes v. Cankweil, __ | i 4J0 Fad 1087 (Str Ch, 2000). . . . . 28 __ ‘lUnited Shales v. Cronic, Hob viS. 648 484) 2... 24,26 — United Shales v. Guodian, no, 3:18-Ce99154, ee ee” 202249. Disk, LEXES 144670 (w.0, ba. Aug. tl 2022).1,9, 1b Patel Steer x. Guodiy aa 22-3087 CellC San ll 2a) 2th onthe Shales ¥, Goodin,