Whether the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was violated when trial and appellate counsel failed to challenge potentially unconstitutional search warrants and arrest warrants lacking probable cause

No question identified. : To: Supreme Justice Alito Martin Renteria, a prisoner in Federal custody, No.: 18318-509 respectfully requests an extension of 60 days time to file a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari under Supreme Court Rules 13.5 and 30.3. The basis for jurisdiction for the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is under Supreme Court Rule 10(a) where a United States Court of Appeals has extended a decision in conflict with the decision of other U.S. Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court on the same important matter as to call for an exercise of this Court's supervisory power, and 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). The judgment sought to be reviewed is from the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit's denial of an application for a Certificate of Appealability (Attachment 1, Pgs. 1-2). Following the denial of the applicant's 28 U S.C. § 2255 Motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence from the United States District court for the Western District of Texas, Midland/Odessa Division (Attachment 2), Appeal No.: 2450557, USDC No.: 7:24-CV-26, Grounds one through six where Constitutional rights have been denied where; 1.) The superceding indictment failed to confer jurisdiction onto the trial Court by not including any essential facts in constituting the offense charged as required by Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 7(c)(1) denying the applicant of his Sixth Amendment right to know the nature and cause of the accusations in order to prepare an adequate defense; the protection guaranteed within the Fifth Amendment not to be tried for the same offense twice; and the Fifth Amendment right to be charged only upon the peesentment of an indictment of charges found by a grand jury by failing to state an offanse 2.) The applicant was denied the right to assistance of Counsel within the Sixth Amendment and his right to be free from an unreasonable seizure of his person within the Fourth Amendment when trial Counsel failed to inform the applicant or raise the issue that the arrest warrant obtained after a warrantless home arrest continued to allow the confinement of the applicant where it lacked probable cause and was unsupported by oath or affirmation when the arrest warrant did not describe the essential facts of the offense charged in the complaint as required by Federal Rules of Criminal procedure Rules three and four 3.) The applicant was denied his right to assistance of Counsel within the Sixth Amendment and the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures baed on a warrant that lacked probable cause and was unsupported by oath or affirmation when trial Counsel failed to inform the applicant or raise the issue that the October 27 2020 search warrant lacked probable cause by contained a false statement written by the affiant that an item of search would be located at a different geographical location 4 ) The applicant was denied the right to assistance of Counsel within the Sixth Amendment and the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures when trial Counsel failed to inform the applicant or raise the issue that a November 2, 2020 search warrant failed to meet the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment, and the 4th Amendment Fed. Rule. Crim. Proc. 41(e)(2)(A). 5.) The applicant was denied the right to assistance of Counsel within the Sixth Amendment when appellate Counsel failed to challenge the District Court's denial of the suppression of evidence that led to be conviction of the applicant where the (implied consent, good faith, independent source doctrine and inevitable discovery) exceptions to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule did not apply. 6.) The applicant was denied the right to assistance of Counsel within the Sixth Amendment when appellate Counsel abandoned the applicant's argument on direct appeal that trial evidence was insufficient to support a conviction under 18 USC § 1591(e)(3) and when he included an accusatory