^ sJfege 4ML ife dMifolCnifeL ^
Kii/^ Q^iarl: desird -(or £ caml<^
CDdcEMfm Uu^5fecteirt(i<Mtdmid 4 Ma.itej© .
n ' \ - ' u^S u^f6fsi(2).
nttdt & sabstei^tta! 5taDsd3 ®r tfc dmid 4 2.
figKt ,%t nw+K cirwS. daiiKi Mr. 4ai|£3 Ctm , as wt fKMel
BMBBgiife V'CE(si3 tM" Wcste 4 (TSSttL i£*d<i %*id.
cfcfcfeife utefterl^ omt&i sfete a- Valcd^ d&M m-wda&a
J. & coMShl^odd fiaiit 2Md iM Vtrate £f (Easbi oyiM^sd.
o^GT^fe dtekfct CM& o®6 cMtd ax ih pitxstoiS
rulifcig, ij»s mA shaOM . 'ifc case t&us p_(tjB^fe -falfouJiXigt
P VL
falg^rv®te^/^L^
id*^ <2ireiutb dsacstaii uss basd. oa^At d®\rs± causes ,
Sali«gE * daSS co^% 2/M eS?<4oaete^cMd.
5\vSd be dei^ fartta &«. ^(ffftesfe

Whether the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals erred in denying Mr. Hawes' petition for a certificate of appealability concerning the district court's denial of his federal habeas corpus petition