1. Whether federal courts should or must consider the
restrictive standards for granting habaes relief under
the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of
1996, 110 Stat. 1214, 28 U.S.G. §2254(d), when deciding
whether the petitioner has made the "substantial showing
of the denial of a constitutional right" required for
issuance of the certificate of appealability prerequisite
to appeal from the denial of federal habaes relief under
28 U.S.C. §2254.

2. Whether Williams was entitled to a certificate of
appealability on his claim that he was denied the effective
assistance of counsel due to appellate counsel"s failure
to appeal the following claim which was fully preserved
in the record:

Newly discoverd evidence based on the multiple
admissions both before and after trial by the
state's primary witness, Rosario Fuentez, that
his trial testimony against Williams was false
and that Williams in fact was not involved in
Fuentez's commission of the charged offense.

3. Whether Williams was entitled to a certificate of
appealability on his claim that he was denied the effective
assistance of counsel due to appellate counsel's failure
to argue the following claim in the court of appeals:

Reversal is appropriate in the interest of
justice on the grounds that the real controversy
was not fully tried because the jury was denied
evidence of Fuentez',s admissions that Williams in fact was not involved in the charged offenses,
and that Fuentez had only claimed otherwise in
order to minimize the consequences of his own
criminal conduct.

Whether federal courts should or must consider the restrictive standards for granting habeas relief under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996