Whether a federal circuit court is patently wrong in denying a Certificate of Appealability in a capital case where a state habeas petitioner identifies specific failings by trial counsel and offers overwhelming detailed mitigation discovered in collateral proceedings

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether a federal circuit court is patently wrong in denying a Certificate of Appealability in a capital case where a state habeas petitioner identifies specific failings by trial counsel, offers overwhelming detailed mitigation discovered in collateral proceedings centrally relevant to the facts of the crime, and identifies objectively unreasonable applications of clearly established federal law by the state court. 2. Whether a state court’s unreasonable application of this Court’s Strickland prejudice standard in applying a piece-meal prejudice analysis to a claimwhich necessarily diminishes the assessment of the weight of mitigation presented — presents a claim debatable among jurists of reason when four other federal circuits have held failure to assess prejudice in its totality is an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. il