OTD THE UNITEO STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUZTEARORBYDEJIEING THE APDELANT MR(EUIS) A CERTIFICATE OF APDEAUABICZTY

2. OID THE UNTITEO STATES COURT OF APREALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUITERRORBY OEJTEIG THE APDELANTME(EUIS MOTION FOR RECNSIOFRATION FOR A CERTLFZCATE OF AREAUABUTLY

3. OIO THE UWITEO STATES OZOTRICT WXIETFOR THE OISTEZT OF IDAHOERRORBMBGNIEING THE APPELLANT MR(ELIS)A CERTLFICATE OF APDEALABICITY

4. OIO THE UMITEO STATES OISTRICT COXRT FOR THE DIOTEICT OF JDAHOERRORBY DGNIENG THE APPEUANT MRELLISMOTLONFORREIEE FROM JUOGMENT E.R.CD. OOLD MOTION OW THE FULRWING GROWNOS:

A. RULE 60(6)). MISTAKE INAOVERTENCE SURDRISE, OR EXCNSABLE NEGLECT.

Q RULE 60(B)(2). NEWLEY OISCOVEREO EVIDGCE.

RULE 60(0)(6). A. IT I5 IN THE TWTIREST OF JUSTICETOREGNKIDER (CUAIM 2 OUE TO THE INEARESTIVE ASSUSTAWCE OF FIRST INSTANOE TRLAL CUNBELS FAIUKRE TO CHALLEDGE THE FORCED AND NON - CONSENTIAL WARRANTLESS BWDD DRAW.SEE: STRICKUAWO. V. WASHINGTON (1084). AND INEFFECTIVE ASSISTHANCE OF ROST-CONVICTION CONSELS FAILURE TO HAVE RAISEO THE SUBTANTIVE CUAIM OF INEFFECTIUE ASSISTANCE OF FIRST INKSTANCE TRIAL CWXNSEL IN THE APPEULANT MR(ELIS) INITLAL WUANTORAL PROCEEOINGS SEE: MArTinEZV. RYan SO6 U.S132 S.CT. 1309(2012)

5. OLD THE UNITED STATES BOISTRICT COURT OISTRIOT OF JDAHO ERROR BY FOR THE RULEING THAT THE APPELANT MR ELLIS INEFFECTIUE AESISTANCE OF FIRST INSTANCE TRIALCOWSE(CUAIM 2) HAD NUT BEEN A SUBSTANTIVE CAIM.SEE: STRiCKTLONdV Washiny1on 466u.5. 668 (1984).

OIO THE UNITEO STATES OISTRICT COURT FOR THE OISTRICT OF JOAHO(ERROR RULEING THAT CLUAIM 2 WAS UNTIMELY.SEE: HEMSTV.COOK 26O F.3d1039, 1043,(aTH Cira001).

Whether the district court erred in denying the appellant's claim of ineffective assistance of first instance trial counsel