(1) DID THE HONORABLE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN ATLANTA, GEORGIA
COMMIT "PLAIN AND OBVIOUS ERROR" BY DENYING PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY ("COA") IN BEHALF OF "THE GOVERNMENT KNOWING
LY PRESENTING "FALSE STATEMENTS IN THE OPENING STATEMENT, AND ORCHESTRAT
ING THE GOVERNMENT'S KEY WITNESS TO PRESENT PERJURED TESTIMONY AND CAPI
TALIZING ON THE PERJURED TESTIMONY DURING CLOSING ARGUMENTS TO OBTAIN THE
GUILTY VERDICTS FOR DISTRICT COURT CASE NO. 9:15-CR-80003-DMM-5 ?

(2) DID THE HONORABLE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN ATLANTA, GEORGIA
COMMIT "PLAIN AND OBVIOUS ERROR" BY DENYING PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY ("COA") IN BEHALF OF THE HONORABLE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DONALD M. MIDDLEBROOKS KNOWINGLY VIOLATING "FEDERAL
RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULE 32" DURING AND AFTER PETITIONER'S SENTEN
CING HEARING ON OCTOBER 8TH, 2015 ?

(3) DID THE HONORABLE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN ATLANTA, GEORGIA
COMMIT "PLAIN AND OBVIOUS ERROR" BY DENYING PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY ("COA") IN BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT KNOWING
LY LYING ABOUT MATERIAL ELEMENTS OF FACTS TO THE HONORABLE DISTRICT JUDGE
DONALD M. MIDDLEBROOKS DURING PETITIONER'S SENTENCING HEARING THAT WOULD
HAVE AND STILL WILL HAVE CHANGED THE OUTCOME OF PETITIONER'S CONVICTIONS
AND/OR SENTENCES, IN BEHALF OF DISTRICT COURT CASE NO. 9:15-CR-80003-DMM ?

(4) DID THE HONORABLE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN ATLANTA, GEORGIA
COMMIT "PLAIN AND OBVIOUS ERROR" BY DENYING PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY ("COA") IN BEHALF OF THE APPEALATE COUNSEL
DELIBERATELY REFUSING TO RAISE PETITIONER'S PRESERVED FEDERAL RULES OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULE 32 VIOLATION ARGUMENTS DURING PETITIONER'S DIRECT
APPEAL ?

Did the Eleventh Circuit commit error in denying a COA for government misconduct, perjured testimony, and sentencing violations?