Did the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals err in denying a Certificate of Appealability

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Did the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals err in denying a Certificate of Appealability (*COA”) consistent with the standards set by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) and by this Court in Miller-El v. Cockrell, 587 U.S. 322, 327 (2003) and Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000), to review the holdings of the district court and the Nevada Supreme Court that 1. There was sufficient evidence to support a conviction based on an alleged conspiracy that relied on a distribution of drugs as payment for an assault, where the alleged drug transaction was not charged in the Information, no person admitted to any conspiracy, and the alleged drugs were not seen by any witness or admitted to by any person and were never recovered or tested, contrary to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution as determined by Jn re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) and Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) and other prior and subsequent Supreme Court precedents requiring sufficient evidence to support a conviction, and 2. Mr. Kie was not deprived of due process of law and a fair trial by the ineffective assistance of trial counsel who (1) failed to obtain a complete set of videos of the alleged offense from the prosecution or its witnesses, (2) failed to show the complete set of videos to Mr. Kie or communicate adequately with him about them, and (3) failed to use exculpatory video evidence, resulting in Mr. Kie foregoing a very favorable plea offer, contrary to the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution as determined by Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012) and other prior and subsequent Supreme Court precedents requiring effective assistance of counsel in trial and plea bargaining. .