Did The United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit abuse its discretion in Denying Certificate of Appealability of the denial of the Amendment of the United States Constitution, and did the Court not body the Modified statement in Case law that unqualified attorneys ignorance or inadvertence in a postconviction proceeding does not excuse a procedural default, and When a state adjudication limits the Claim of ineffective assistance of Counsel Collateral review, may a prisoner establish a procedural default Cause, and did the state Court not appoint Counsel in the initial Proceeding or appealed that Proceeding?

Under the ineffective Counsel in that Proceeding was appointed the Underlyings Claim Strickland standards and which is to substantial one is a Claim that the same has that the Claim say Davis Merits?

Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit abused its discretion in denying a certificate of appealability on the denial of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel claim when state law limits the adjudication of such claims to collateral review