Whether the Sixth Amendment requires a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel claims when a certificate of appealability is denied without substantive review of the underlying constitutional violations

No question identified. : e Lack of any criminal statute governing the alleged conduct within a Homeowners’ Association election e Application of vicarious conspiratorial liability without evidence of specific intent or aiding and abetting e Use of double hearsay to initiate charges without probable cause e Denial of confrontation rights where key witnesses never testified under oath or were shielded from cross-examination due to their own potential criminal exposure Given the complex constitutional implications, the acknowledged flaws in my trial and appeal process, and the serious breakdown in legal representation, | respectfully request a reasonable extension of time (Up to 60 Days) to allow me to secure competent counsel or prepare a proper pro se filing once | have full access to my materials. | make this request in good faith and in the interest of justice. | humbly ask this Court’s understanding and compassion in allowing me the opportunity to be heard. Respectfully, Dmitry Kupershmidt Ez 2800 Coyle St APT 318 Brooklyn NY 11229 07/16/2025 Case 1:21-cv-00363-MCC Document52 Filed 04/17/25 Page 1 of1 ALD-115 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT C.A. No. 25-1157 DIMITRY KUPERSCHMIDT, Appellant VS. JEFF ANGRADI, Chief Probation Officer; et al. (M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 1:21-cv-00363) Present: BIBAS, PORTER, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judges Submitted is Appellant’s application for a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) in the above-captioned case. Respectfully, Clerk ORDER The foregoing request for a certificate of appealability is denied because Kuperschmidt has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Jurists of reason would not debate the rejection of Kuperschmidt’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims because, for essentially the reasons provided by the District Court, he failed to show that his counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that the deficient performance prejudiced him. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984); see also Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 105 (2011) (“Even under de novo review, the standard for judging counsel’s representation is a most deferential one.) By the Court, s/David J. Porter Circuit Judge “, Dated: April 17, 2025 A Lmr/cc: All Counsel of Record Qt ad Didg awe O JUL 24 2025 SUPREME COGS ERK