Did the Court of Appeals abuse its discretion, violating Bartunek's due-process rights, by failing to issue a Certificate of Appealability?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED : Did the Court of Appeals abuse its discretion, violationg Bartunek's due process rights, by failing to issue a Certificate of Appealability for constitutional claims that were supported by facts and law, and therefore, deserved further consideration? And by doing so, did the appeallate court sanction..the District Court's departure from the usual course of judicial procedure-~-to hold a hearing and appoint counsel, when Bartunek's § 2255 motion survived inital review? And, if so, did this violate the law and Bartunek's due process rights and right to counsel guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the United States Constitution? . i LS, SUBSIDIARY QUESTIONS PRESENTED Is a § 2255 proceeding a critical stage in the petitioner's criminal prosecution, requiring the appointment of counsel; and therefore, when the ‘ District Court failed to appoint counsel, it deprived Bartunek of his Sixth . Amendment. right to counsel? Is Rule 4(a) governing § 2255 proceedings, requiring a Judge to rule on , \ his own errors, abuses of discretion, misconduct and/or vindictiveness, unconstitutional, or unconstitutional as applied to Bartunek's case?. ii UNDERLYING . QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. WHETHER DELAYS CAUSED BY COUNSELOR FAILURES, A PRO SE DEFENDANT WHO DIDN'T CHOOSE THE PROSECUTOR, AND THE COURT ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE STATE PURSUANT TO THE SPEEDY TRIAL ANALYSIS IN BARKER V. WINGO, 407 US 514, 530 (1972), RESULTING IN VIOLATION OF BARTUNEK'S SPEEDY TRIAL RIGHTS UNDER THE SIXTH AMENDMENT . Ir. WHETHER FAILURE TO APPOINT ALTERNATE COUNSEL DEPRIVED BARTUNEK OF THE RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL DURING CRITICAL STAGES OF HIS CASE III. WHETHER, UNDER THE TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES, BARTUNEK'S TRIAL WAS UNFAIR, VIOLATING HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS \ Iv. WHETHER COUNSEL FAILED TO SUBJECT THE PROSECUTOR'S CASE TO ANY MEANINGUL ADVERSARIAL TESTING Vv. WHETHER ALLOWING COUNSEL TO SIT AT A TABLE BEHIND BARTUNEK, AND THUS © PREVENTING BARTUNEK FROM CONFURRING WITH HIM DURING TRIAL, DENIED : BARTUNEK"S RIGBT TO COUNSEL | , “ VI. WHETHER COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE AND PRESENT AN ALIBI DEFENSE, WHEN BARTUNEK SPECIFICALLY ASKED HIM TO DO SO, CONSTITUTES INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. VII. WHETHER ADMITTING THE NCMEC EVIDENCE VIOLATED BARTUNEK'S RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION, AND FAILURE OF HIS COUNSEL TO OBJECT TO ITS ADMITTANCE VIOLATED HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL VIII. WHETHER BARTUNEK'S SENTENCE WAS IMPOSED IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW AND/OR CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES Ix. WHETHER DUE PROCESS AND THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL WAS VIOLATED WHEN THE COURT IMPOSED A SENTENCE THAT, BUT FOR JUDGE FOUND FACTS, RESULTED IN A SUBSTANTIVELY UNREASONABLE AND THUS ILLEGAL SENTENCE X. WHETHER BARTUNEK'S SENTENCE WAS VINDICTIVELY IMPOSED BECAUSE HE EXERCISED HIS RIGHT TO TRIAL INSTEAD OF ACCEPTING A PLEA AGREEMENT : xI. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN DENYING BARTUNEK'S § 2255 MOTION XII. WHETHER THE DISTRICT AND APPELLATE COURTS ERRED IN FAILING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY FOR BARTUNEK'S § 2255 CLAINMS iii RELATED CASES . Direct Appeal of 8:17CR28 8th Cir. 19-1584 United States v. Bartunek 08/12/2020 Supreme 20-6889 United States v. Bartunek 02/27/2021 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Habeas D. Neb. 8:18CV440 United States v. Bartunek 01/08/2019 8th Cir. 19-1248 United States v. Bartunek 02/12/2019 Supreme 19-6880 United States v. Bartunek 01/13/2020 _ iv