On federal criminal appellants first appeal as of right to counsel, may the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals refuse to provide counsel to help reply to the prosecution's response to the brief and to assist in filing a Rule 33 new trial motion to the District Court for indicative relief under Rule 37 based on newly discovered evidence pertaining to a Fifth Amendment due process violation if it cannot be presented directly to the Court of Appeals, yet the appellant is required to raise the Constitutional violation before the end of the direct appeal?

Is not the filing of a constitutional violation for redress considered a critical staple that requires the assistance of Counsel, regardless of the recipient court, on criminal appellants first appeal?

Whether the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals erred in refusing to provide counsel to a criminal appellant for the purpose of responding to the prosecution's response brief and assisting in filing a Rule 33 new trial motion based on newly discovered evidence of a Fifth Amendment due process violation