I
WHETHER PETITIONER BOYETT WAS DENIED EFFECTINEASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL UNDER THE SIXTA AMENDMENT BECAUSE THE CNRLUIT OPINION CONFLICTS WITH CLEARLY ESTABLUSHED LAW OF STRICKLAND V. WASHTNGTON,
BELL V. MiLLER, No. 05-5235 (2d CIR,2007);
466 U.S.668 (1984);
AKE V. OKLA., 470 U.S. 68 (1985); GERSTEN V. SENROWSKI, 426 U.S,
F.3d 588 (2005); JACOBS V. HORN,
(3Rd CiR.2005); AND.
PAVELV. HOLNS, (2d CIR. 2001);
STARR V. LOCKHART, 23 F,3d 1280
(2d CiN. 1994),.YET PETITDNER BOYETT
WAS NEVER AFFORDED THE
BENEFIT OF REVIEW_UNDER THESE CASES BY THE NEW MEXICO SUPREME
COURT, AND THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (FEDERAL DENIED RE-
. LIEF, AS DID ALL OTHER "REVIENING" COURTS? SEE APP. A.

II
WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT COMMITTED ERROR WHEN, AFTER
APPLYING THE IHARMLESS ERROR STANDARD. OF BRECHT V. ABRAIAMSON,
507 U.S, 619 (I993) AND CONCLUDED THAT THE CONSTiTUTIONAL
ERROR WAS SIGNIEICANT TO THE JURY'S DETERMINATION, THE CIRCUIT
COURT'S DENIAL OF PETITIONER BOYETT'S REQULESTED HABEAS RELIEF
328_U.S.750 (I946), WIICH HELD THAT GUILTY VERDICTS ARISING FROM
JURY TRIALS CONTAINING CONSTITUTIONAL ERRORS SHOULD BE UPHELD
ONLY WHEN THE ERROR DOES NOT IMPERMISSIBLY SWAY THE JURY'S VERDIT? APP. A

III.
WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT COMMITTED ERROR WHEN iT DETERMINED
THE UNDERLYNG CONSTI TUTIONAL CLAIMS STATED By PETITTDNER BOUETT,
WHICH INCLUDED CLAIMS OF VIOLATIONS TO HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT CONELICTS WITA IITS COURT'S RULING iN
GONZALEZ V. THALER, 132 S,CT, 641, 644 (2012), WHiCH HELD THAT
IT WOULD BE "COUNTERINTUiTiVE TO RENDER A PANEL OF COURT
OF APPEAL JUDGES POWERLESS TO ACT ON APPEALS SIMPLY
BECAUSEA
COA FAILED TO INDICATE AN iSSUE ? SEE APP A AND RECORD E

IV.
WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT COMMITTED ERROR WHEN IT DEMIED.
PETI TIDNER BOUETT APPONTINENT OF COUNSEL. DESPITE THE COURT'S
CONSIDERABLE AUTHORITY AND DISCRETION UNDER 18 U.S.C. SECTTON
3006 A (a)(2)(B) (2012), AND BECAUSE P

Whether petitioner Boyett was denied effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment