Whether the Ninth Circuit is genuinely adhering to the Supreme Court's standard for issuing certificates of appealability or sub silentio denying them on substantive merits

QUESTION PRESENTED Petitioner, Mohamed Osman Mohamud, was convicted of Attempted Use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction, 18 U.S.C. § 2332a(a)(2)(A), arising from a government sting operation in which FBI agents, posing as Islamist extremists, encouraged petitioner to devise a plot to detonate an explosive device at the annual Christmas tree lighting ceremony in downtown Portland, Oregon. The conviction was upheld on direct appeal. Petitioner moved to vacate the conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging, among other things, that he was denied due process because the presiding judge was implicitly biased because his adult family member and the judge’s law clerk attended the ceremony, and that petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel for counsel’s failure to move to recuse the judge, counsel’s failure to peremptorily strike a juror whose minor children also attended the event, and appellate counsel’s failure to appeal the denial of a for-cause challenge of that juror. The district court issued a 32-page published opinion denying relief on the merits and denying a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit also denied a certificate of appealability. The issue presented is whether the Court of Appeals is genuinely adhering to this Court’s well-established instruction to appellate courts that certificates of appealability must issue when an appellant has shown that ‘jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of [petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude that the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further,” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 337 (2003), or whether the Court of Appeals is instead sub silentio denying certificates of appealability on the substantive merits. ii LIST OF PROCEEDINGS 1. Underlying criminal proceeding — United States of America v. Mohamed Osman Mohamud, US District Court, District of Oregon, Case No. 3:10cr-00475-HZ 2. Direct appeal of underlying conviction — United States of America v. Mohamed Osman Mohamud, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Case No. 14-30217. 3. Petition for Writ of Certiorari in direct appeal — Mohamed Osman Mohamud v. United States of America, United States Supreme Court Case No. 17-5126. 4. Habeas proceeding — United States of America v. Mohamed Osman Mohamud, United States District Court, District of Oregon, Case Nos. 3:20-cv-00883-HZ and 3:10-cr-00475-HZ. 5. Habeas appeal — United States of America v. Mohamed Osman Mohamud, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Case No. 23-3594.