Whether Frank Nathan Escalante's due process rights were violated at any stage of the judicial proceedings

No question identified. : ; QUESTIONS PRCSENTED FoR REVTEW 3 || __ al 4. \was Ri dionects due Process Violaled at any Vigne: _ 5 Vnrouge No dicial Pro ceedings? . ; , a. Was Li droners \ ial “{andamentally unkaie)” ; Ny 3. Has LU dicner made a Sobstaniial Showing \hal @ reversal is thdeed Possible by a Simple yo. "0 inclosion Of & jery ya sit ackion ). . . 11 : . a 4. Is \nes a Miscarriage of Jeshice) 14|) . 16| . 7 : 7 20 . . . . . 24 22 . 23 24 25 : 26 : 27 28 "FRANK NATHAN oo 3 Rican ka Shale Kison oe * 90. Box 1500 : Ucescent City, CA WSSEQ 4 Di leoner ita) VQ) PER | | «FRANK NATHAN ESCALANYE , a AN THE SUPREME CURT “| 1 OF Ve UNTIED oTATES | = FRANC MAIN ESTATE No. © Febhoner-Mgpellant CVO BE SURRLIED BYTE CERK OF = V ARE Curt) a * SIM RUBERTSON, Werden uN CIRWLT No, l-S6342). ' . Kespoadents -Avoellees TION FOR A \Wal] OF CERITORARL _ ; s"PETON FOR AEST OF CEQUORARE 1 BauNcscer FRANK NATHAN ESCKLINTE a Loe a Wet of ceckoract \, review Vhe jodqenent of Ye United . ~ Gyales Couck of hopeals Ce \re Nid Civeeid, denying Kldoners 7 ° BE Vcakion (oe CecGcale of Mopealability, oo! . ~ RECEIVED . a OPINTONS BELOW | “ here al of | uae? ees aa © eee On Wey apne. _ ~q a a | ; : 3 by \he Califscaia Cour of Nopea\, Second Appellate Dishevel, a 3) ALL, Ve\ioner's coovickion and Case femanded oacl< foc. | . Senlencin distrekoa ‘é [A|2ore); \2 | Pelshioner \vea (red, a ss Series a habeas gekkions iva) Ve \Los Angeles Coonly Sopecior. ‘ ‘Gooch (8}20[a018), CalCoegia Cork of Aopeal Ca} s>f2or9, | 3 5 CaiGinia Supreme Cour E/iaaoia) reasserling that Me bial | ; § /Couck AS vequed \. qe Sva DSeone inglsvekions only when, | 9 | Sclsdadial evidence exishS in Wee cecord be Sve gort Maem in | 10 lve ference \o msheoc Vhe seey with 6 No. 6, a io | 11 wld \raloeas Pekons Were denied 3\ Ordec Glas}20a\). : 7 (Ce aea\ nN of CALcaia (Hon. Konald DW. Lew), . ; 4 A deey,ing pekhion Co. wae of Cececa\ \woeas cocpus (4 [24] 2a); | ie 4] Disbiek Couek Order Den ing Request Ge CorlGeate of = 6: Aopea\ability (120m); {5, Oe by a\rs Nin Creu Coord | ; ‘of Appeals penyns Régvest Loe Cec\Kicae of Mggealability 8 (Sha\a0d)Gee Prendix Mo Copies) | "STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION : . : The Diskeet Cook and Ve Cock of hoveals Soc Ve Niath | , Creel denied Veli\ionee's Cequesi fo Gec\Ger\s of Aopea\als\y. = Ma behav. Urided Shakes, S24 U.9. 236 (1898), His Cock * Vpeld Yost, porsuanl bo 28 USC SIAN), The Unded Shes Supreme. Court \yas \vasdiekion, on Cerkiorari, to feview a denial “ ofa teques or CecliGeake of Aopealability by a Circuit judge : . Oo Pane\ of a Vederal Coork of Aggea\s. : "Ot A “lL STATUTORY PROVISEONS TOWED = 8 4 a \e ight of a Shale Prisoner \, Seek Cedeca\ \abeas , |] Coreus relief vs avacanteed in 28 USC 8aas. Whe shankar |-Hee whel Under “AEDPAN is Sek ah in 28 USE SAISON). | oa. STANDARD OF REVIEW: |. 5 DENTAL OF CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABTLTY I Ne Morv, Cockéelf 53? VS. 322 N23 S424 | 12 (2003), Ms Cook claifed \\ve S\andacds Oe ySsuznce of a : 13 Cedi Gerke of Apeea\abilly \heceafter “Con’): , 14 ~ eee A ri Soner Seeking a COA need only demonstrate a Substantial ee 1s Showing of \he derial of 2 conskiokonal cidn\.! A Deditoner satishies this ae |] Shandacd by demaastrading Shak joasks of treason, could disagree vith | a re diskere Courts Ces,\Acwe of RS Constdvtional claims oc Mhak. 1a jvrists Coold Conclode Ve WSues Presented ave adequate Lo is deserve. Encouragement \o Proceed ner. ' We do not KeGuise. 20 Pertoner bo Prove, before ne issuance of B C0 A, Nhat Some ax || \ovisks Ugo) ayant \ve petition Coc nabeas corpus. Ladesh, a Claim » ban be debatable even Yinovaln every \vrist of feason mig 23 || Aqtee, ater \he COA vas been ranked and Ye Care has tecieved| 24 LA Consieraliog, that pedtioner will Wok Ocevar, a os Id, 1273S. Ck al \O34,cibing SACK v. MeDanief 529 US ve [143,484 (2000) _ : = ' oe