Question not identified

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. In denying petitioner's habeas certificate of appealability, where the 3d Circuit’s review of the record entirely overlooked that the facts in trial counsel’s statement established a violation of due process and 6th amendment violation per Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005), and these facts were required to be reviewed in the state court’s decision yet never considered, would jurists of reason find it debatable that the petitioner made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right requiring a reversal of the 3d Circuit’s erroneous review? 2. Where the District Court erroneously applied deference under 2254(d) to a state court review that was a decision contrary to statelaw procedural principles, with the petitioner providing the missing statement of trial counsel for rebuttal pursuant to 2254(e)(1) when these facts establish the narrow application of the presumed prejudice holding of US v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984) was it reversible error for the 3d Circuit to adopt the District Court’s application of the standard as held in Harrington v Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) that the decision be “beyond any possibility for fair minded disagreement”? 3. Where trial counsel fails to inform the court of his client’s recent psychological evaluation and diagnosis of mental disorders at the time counsel submits his client to plead guilty, who’s client appeared in a straight jacket/muzzled/ shackled and wearing mittens, is such conduct by counsel a complete failure of representation at a critical stage necessitating an Appellate review under the US v. Cronic standard, or does it constitute a presumption of prejudice under the Strickland v. Washington standard for ineffective assistance of counsel? 4. Does a state government agency’s repeated obstruction of an incarcerated petitioner diligently pursuing his habeas rights under 2254 (b)(1)(B)(@ii) render the process ineffective to protect the rights of the appellant such that the cumulative due process violations of Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) are violated? 5. Where the Third Circuit failed to follow its own precedent in U.S. v. Cole, 813 F.2d 43 (3d Cir. 1987), which requires further inquiry into a defendant’s competency when a trial court was alerted to warning signs of a defendant’s incompetency to plead guilty, when the defendant West appeared in court wearing a straight jacket, shackles, spit mask and mittens, and he had taken medications prior to his appearance, and yet the trial court failed to make further inquiry into the effects thereof, is it error for the circuit court to have accepted that the Defendant’s plea was a knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of his rights?