Whether a state prisoner's habeas petition can be procedurally defaulted when the prisoner was denied effective assistance of counsel during state post-conviction proceedings

No question identified. : 23 24 25 26 27 28 Thereby certify that the foregoing has been forwarded by means of U.S. Postal Services: To the following address: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Tashi: (0 Ssarth, 06S A. Cx boa! aoe. Ploant, AZ Bxdof From the following address: ASPC-Yuma, Cheyenne P.O. Box 8909 San Luis, AZ 85349 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this /7 % say of ev 20 2° ~~ MagteT cars Ze UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Fl LE D FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SEP 17 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS MARZET FARRIS III, No. 25-2553 Petitioner Appellant, Bain ; yeni Prescott Vv. ORDER RYAN THORNELL, Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondents Appellees. Before: SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. This appeal is from the denial of appellant’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and post-judgment motions. The request for a certificate of appealability (Docket Entry No. 3) is denied because appellant has not shown that “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003); Martinez v. Shinn, 33 F Ath 1254, 1261 (9th Cir. 2022).