Did the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals by-pass the petitioner's 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment rights by denying his petition for Certificate of Appealability, considering the following:

A) The police admitted that (out of "9000" cases) this case, was the "only" case, where-in they (the police) knowingly and willingly falsified the documents in an effort to fulfill some personal agenda. They (the police) encourage us to "Report Suspicious Activity"—should their enthusiasm wane when the spotlight lands on them? Fundamental Fairness should be the Courts ultimate focus. See Lockhart v FretwelT 506 U.S. at 369, 113 S.Ct. 838,122 L.Ed. 2d 180 (1993).

B) When separate cases are "not" severed into separate trials — the contaminating effects of spillover (despite the above tampering factor) will still always result in confusion, chaos and disarray. (See Ground Two). Fairness takes precedence over efficiency, convenience and judicial economy see Dodge v State . 204 So. 2d 490 (4th Dist. 2016) and Lockhart v Fretwell (supra).

C) Failure to honor a plea agreement (just because the law has since changed) is a breach of contract knowing that, "any law of which inflicts a greater punishment then the law at the time of the crime — is a violation of the Ex post factos provision." See Akins v Snow 922 F. 2d 1558 (11th Circuit 1991).

Did the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals by-pass the petitioner's 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment rights by denying his petition for Certificate of Appealability?