I.
Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying
Martinez's Rule 60(b)(6) request to reopen the judgment in order
to compel discovery where it ruled that Martinez could not
prove, in the absence of discovery, the materiality prong of his
due process violation that was premised on a violation of Napue
v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959)—and thus he could not prove the
"extraordinary circumstances" necessary to re-open the
judgment under Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005);

II.
Whether the Ninth Circuit violated the rule of Buck v. Davis, 137
S. Ct. 759 (2017), by rendering a merits ruling that Martinez had
not demonstrated "extraordinary circumstances" for the
granting of his Rule 60(b)(6) motion under Gonzalez v. Crosby,
545 U.S. 524 (2005), where the sole question before the court at
the COA stage was the debatability of the district court's
decision to deny discovery under Rule 60(b)(6).

Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Martinez's Rule 60(b)(6) request to reopen the judgment in order to compel discovery