1. In refusing to issue a COA, did the First Circuit apply a novel, harsher standard requiring Petitioner to prove actual intent by conflicted counsel to harm another client, thereby denying Cruz Vazquez his Fifth Amendment right to due process and his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of conflict-free counsel in violation of Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (1988); Mickels v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162 (2002); and, United States v. DeCologero, 530 F.3d 36, 77 (1st Cir.2008)?

2. Did the First Circuit depart from precedent when it ignored that Cruz Vazquez was denied effective assistance of counsel, where his counsel abandoned a readily-available multiple conspiracy defense, failed to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, and then conceded guilt, instead of invoking the "supermarket" multiple conspiracy defense recognized in United States v. Dellosantos, 649 F.3d 109, 121 (1st Cir. 2011)?

3. Waving off the Fifth Amendment's due process clause, did the First Circuit ignore this Court's precedent by blessing the district court's open bias in summarily denying Cruz Vazquez's well-grounded, critical Brady requests, where unchallenged facts in the 2255 demonstrated a palpable pattern of Brady violations by the government's Puerto Rico office?

4. Did the First Circuit's refusal to issue a certificate of appealability unconstitutionally permit a prejudicial denial of Cruz Vazquez's right to effective assistance at sentencing, where even the Government admitted that trial counsel waived the issue when it totally "failed to provide evidence to support [a] sentencing disparity contention prior to or at sentencing" in a case where the district court imposed a life sentence?

Whether the First Circuit applied a novel, harsher standard for issuing a certificate of appealability, denying due process and effective assistance of conflict-free counsel