Whether the denial of a Certificate of Appealability violates the established 'Slack v. McDaniel' standard to determine a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right

QUESTIONS PRESENTED TA He appeal of the duial fa 28 e224 Pebtion t>/ Raeary ee lo “MMer-El v Cockrell 37 VS 322" the US PRES Guei * 9 “case Govern He vance of aX Ca Oe Gooulutalna? and 3 wovld te denial of a “Corthrcate of ApPealulo likey” ys th a citation to "Slack ¥ MeDurncel S24 US 473“ and Citing Fhe equsde feqvlemmt> for a’ Crtfeafe of APPeaperuty” bssu@ in “Slack of “ beth" D The wmarids of an under lurng clam, and Z) the Prowduenl 155005 thet he seeks fo /ASe, Violate te errblohed “Shue Decins ” created by ite Supreme Covet iin "UM Mel-EC srendocd te detemine a Substontie! showing of the denas of Gaxfipsaal right, ZP USS 22SRCAX2) that sve1t wodld hal the claun at least Otbatololc, 2 Dees a request fo/ Standby Gvnsel bu a ProS& Orkendont in a criminal Jedical Proceeding, Coarstore A Lovo king of Ae Sotth amendmert ccuhk “te have the agsstaree of covasel for his detense’? When the remuest is made ov a citseen of the Unde States, end . Weold deacal of Standby coursed na Camoul Sudical Drowcding Fol a YoSr ARkadanr vrol\de Ae oust fi Dyrendmentt US Consfrtation . and Fourbeanth omens US Canstrretion QRUZIA Hel Po-Sk debendants dense Wao Wkartyed (oy Kar costine Wrowdural of ents . clostacles and loare Cules ok corto Brovece\ an erscaduce, Fesaltyng tn & denial oA Boe Wocess Prevenvoy, oO. DreSe Dekendank From CKeACng ov presen Wey est Passiole dekense. : 7 RECEIVED APR 98 2024 LEGAL USE ONLY 8) Ds tte dolloning Statements consmivir a UAMMbAUEYS CEANest tof cova , ‘T thik £ need a lawyer" and tw minutes later ensweind 4 QuetT oy fof Clanity . Stating, L Probably need te tlk to & lwwyr "aad weeld QGaatinvatien of Coxtadial sntevoqgution by State agent after the defendant ansuved a Question 64 State agert (ok a veqest Ai clesity) mn the attiinnti’® , vrolate the pfiaciples st forth rn Dawid Uv United States SIZ VS 452) and would the dortinvedtion of costedal iterogution atter the Stat aget Ceclales an vacwetundiag of fh cbeadants Vequeot for covose{ violate the S anudrent and /4 anednant panuples set forth in Edwards V Arizoow 451 VET) Dees being asraoted und held on Wo Bond. coarrrvte tha astiaxte’ at CaAMcnul ProUsdaags, and malrk He Qommertemert st & Crimmbul erosr ano” aad ace +h avaranreas at <he Sixth amadment ardlcenole, Whrarein the Prelate Cause mire cari duvl ok be Onan acresting charge C Grand ah Avte) seotes: ry Shovld a. Noled tus case io relate) to a” achive homicide inuesgatioy and bf thef earoa |, £ um ceqvesting the deferdant be held or Me Boad, and would the ceasal of counsel befole tle stact of the second WStedul sate/ogatiol alate the Son amend meat nght t> counsel, even though the deden Voat hal nat een chousged Wh homa dy Yer, and homede Was the speahu suloject at thE C2acorwd custodial iaccerogatim , LEGAL USE ONLY