Thomas Lam v. Robert C. Tanner, Warden

l The trial judge relied on a discussion with the jury, during voir dire as satisfaction to a constitutional guilty plea that he informed Petitioner of the charges. But the explanation was for second degree murder — not manslaughter as to the charge he pled guilty. Did the Fifth Circuit deny a request for COA on an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court because the trial judge incorrectly explained the charge Petitioner did not plea to? Furthermore, the explanation was directed to the jury — not Petitioner. In addition, did the court err that jurists of reason could not debate that the Henderson1 presumption applies when the Petitioner’s case is distinguishable from Henderson ? J ( i Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637, 96 S.Ct. 2253, 49 L.Ed.2d 108 (1976). ll ■i