Whether the court below erred in procedurally denying to issue a COA for this purely legal claim, in direct conflict with this Court's opinion in Homel v. Helvering, 312 U.S. 552 (1941)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Te This case is one of more than a dozen Medicare fraud cases among varous circuits where physicians, like Dr. Ramirez, were convicted under multiple errors of law, presenting a ; substantial due process problem of national importance, which can only be resolved by this Court's supervisory power. Dr. Ramirez's post-conviction counsel failed to raise this claim in § 2255 petition. Dr. Ramirez raised this claim in his Pro Se ‘Application for Issuance of Certificate of Appealability (COA)'. Whether the court below erred in procedurally denying to issue a COA for this purely legal claim, in direct conflict with this Court's opinion in Homel v. Helvering, 312 U.S. 552 (1941). II, Dr. Ramirez's post-conviction counsel sufficiently presented a claim in § 2255 petition that the trial counsel was : ineffective in conceding Dr. Ramirez's guilt over his . repeated objections. Dr. Ramirez reinforced this claim -with new argument in his Pro Se ‘Application for Issuance of Certificate of Appealability' (COA). Whether the court below erred in procedurally denying to issue a COA, even though Dr. Ramirez presented only new argument (not a new claim) for the same claim of ‘Ineffective Assistance of . Gounsel' that. was presented to district court in § 2255 : petition, in direct conflict with this Court's opinion in ” Citizen United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) and Yee v. | Escondido, 507° UST 519 (1992). eee Iii. Dr. Ramirez's post-conviction counsel sufficiently presented a claim in § 2255 petition that the trial counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate and understand Medicare law. Dr. Ramirez reinforeced this claim with new argument in his Pro Se ‘Application for COA'. Whether the court below erred in procedurally denying to issue a COA, even though Dr. Ramirez presented only new argument: (net a new claim) for the same claim of ‘Ineffective Assistance of Counsel’ that was presented to district court in § 2255 ; petition, in direct conflict with this Court's epinion in Citizen United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) and Yee v. Escondido, 503, U-S. 519 (1992). — (i) | ne | | | |