Whether a state court's denial of a criminal defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim constitutes an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law under Strickland v. Washington

No question identified. : Case: 24-3378 Document: 11-1 Page:1 Date Filed: 04/23/2025 DLD-115 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT C.A. No. 24-3378 MAURICE CRUZ-WEBSTER, Appellant VS. WARDEN JAMES T VAUGHN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, ET AL (D. Del. Civ. No. 1:21-cv-01679) Present: RESTREPO, FREEMAN, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges Submitted are: (1) Appellant’s first request for a certificate of appealability under 28 USS.C. § 2253(c)(1); and (2) Appellant’s second request for a certificate of appealability under 28 USS.C. § 2253(c)(1) in the above-captioned case. Respectfully, Clerk ORDER. The requests for a certificate of appealability are denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Appellant has failed to show that jurists of reason would debate the District Court’s conclusion that his prosecutorial misconduct claim regarding Officer Barnes’ testimony lacked merit. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2); see also Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643 (1974); Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 766 n.8 (1987). Appellant has also failed to show that reasonable jurists would debate the District Court’s conclusions that the state court reasonably applied Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), to his ineffective assistance of counsel claims, that his claims of cumulative error and actual innocence lacked merit, see McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 US. 383, 392 (2013), that his remaining claims were procedurally defaulted, see Case: 24-3378 Document: 11-1 Page:2 Date Filed: 04/23/2025 Rolan v. Coleman, 680 F.3d 311, 317 Gd Cir. 2012), and that he failed to overcome the defaults. See Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 488 (1986); Levya v. Williams, 504 F.3d 357, 366 (3d Cir. 2007). By the Court, s/Arianna J. Freeman Circuit Judge Dated: April 23, 2025 Tmm/cc: Maurice Cruz-Webster Matthew C. Bloom, Esq. Patricia S. Dodszuweit, Clerk Certified Order Issued in Lieu of Mandate Case: 24-3378 Document:17 Page:1 Date Filed: 06/16/2025 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 24-3378 MAURICE CRUZ-WEBSTER, Appellant Vv. WARDEN JAMES T. VAUGHN CORRECTIONAL CENTER; ATTORNEY GENERAL DELAWARE On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (D.C. Civil No. 1:21-cv-01679) PETITION FOR REHEARING Present: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, HARDIMAN, SHWARTZ, KRAUSE, RESTREPO, BIBAS, PORTER, MATEY, PHIPPS, FREEMAN, MONTGOMERY-REEVES, CHUNG, and NYGAARD,_” Circuit Judges The petition for rehearing filed by Appellant in the above-captioned case having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this Court and to all the other available circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the judges of the * Judge Nygaard’s vote is limited to panel rehearing. Case: 24-3378 Document:17 Page:2 Date Filed: 06/16/2025 circuit in regular service not having voted for rehearing, the petition for rehearing by the panel and the Court en banc is denied. By the Court, s/ Arianna J. Freeman Circuit Judge Dated: June 16, 2025 Tmm/cc: Maurice Cruz-Webster Matthew C. Bloom, Esq.