PETITIONER Mr. RIVERA ALLEGED THAT HIS TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO CALL A WITNESS OF WHOM Mr RIVERA MADE HIM AWARE. PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED, IN LARGE PART, UPON UNCORROBORATED EVIDENCE BY THE COMPLAINANTS, IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS, AND THE SIXTH AMENDMENT. MY TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO CONDUCT AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE. TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO CALL AND INTERVIEW EYE WITNESSES THAT ROSE TO THE LEVEL OF A CONSTITUTIONALLY DEFICIENT PERFORMANCE. AND THE DEFICIENT PERFORMANCE PREJUDICED PETITIONER. PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT WAS ACTUALLY INNOCENT OF THE CHARGES. AND MR. RIVERA CONVICTION WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE Mr. RIVERA HAVE NO PRIOR OPPORTUNITY TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM, AND CROSS-EXAMINE. MY TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO REQUEST CRITICAL EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE TO DO H. ON THE ISSUE OF SELF DEFENSE, AND THE SAME FAILED TO DISCLOSE SUCH EVIDENCE TO THE APPLICANT, AND HIS RIVERA PLEA WAS UNINTELLIGENT.

DID THE FIFTH CIRCUIT ERR IN DEFERRING IN HIS OPINION DENYING MR. RIVERA IN PROCEDURAL GROUNDS A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY (COA) THAT COMPORTS WITH THE SUPREME COURT CASES AT LAW?

Whether the 5th Circuit erred in denying Mr. Rivera's procedural request for a Certificate of Appealability (COA) in violation of Supreme Court precedent