DID THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ERR IN FAILING TO GRANT A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY ON ANY OF THE FOUR ISSUES PRESENTED REGARDING FUNDAMENTAL FIFTH AND SIXTH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS THAT WERE UNREASONABLY REJECTED BY THE CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL:

Reasonable jurists could differ as to whether petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to retained counsel of choice was violated when the trial court refused to permit retained counsel to assume representation in the case after the trial court had discharged predecessor counsel.

Reasonable jurists could differ as to whether petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to self-representation was violated when the trial court denied a motion for a short continuance to prepare for trial after granting self-representation.

Reasonable jurists could differ as to whether petitioner's Fifth Amendment right not to testify at his trial was violated by the trial court's ruling that petitioner had to testify first as a prerequisite to calling any other defense witnesses.

Reasonable jurists could differ as to whether petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to present evidence in his defense was violated by the exclusion of evidence regarding the decedents' motive to preemptively attack petitioner.

Did the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals err in failing to grant a certificate of appealability on fundamental Fifth and Sixth Amendment violations?