Jose Nieves Briones v. Eric Guerrero, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division

QUESTION No. 1: DOES THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HAVE JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE DENIAL OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY BY A COURT OF APPEALS ABSENT A FINAL JUDGMENT OR DECREE? QUESTION No. 2: WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD HAVE ISSUED A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY FROM THE DISTRICT COURTIS DETERMINATION THAT THE PETITIONER'S FEDERAL HABEAS PETITION WAS TIME-BARRED WHEN REASONABLE JURISTS COULD DEBATE THAT THE !-YEAR LIMITATION PERIOD COMMENCED UNDER TITLE 28 U.S.C • J SECTION 2244(d)(1)(D) ON THE DATE THAT THE AFFIDAVIT WAS EXECUTED OR THE DATE THAT PETITIONER BECAME AWARE OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONSTTTUJTfBONAL CLAIM? QUESTION No. 3: WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD HAVE ISSUED A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY FROM THE DISTRICT COURT'S DETERMINATION THAT THE PETITIONER'S FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS PETITION WAS TIME-BARRED WHEN REASONABLE JURISTS COULD DEBATE WHETHER THE PROCEDURAL RULING WAS CORRECT UPON THE DISTRICT COURT'S CONSIDERATION OF THE MERITS OF THE PETITIONER^ CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM IN THE DETERMINATION THAT THE PETITION WAS TIME-BARRED? QUESTION No. 3: WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD HAVE ISSUED A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY FROM THE DISTRICT COURT'S DETERMINATION THAT THE PETITIONER'S FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS PETITION WAS TIME-BARREDDWHEN REASONABLE JURISTS COULD DEBATE WHETHER THE PROCEDURAL RULING WAS CORRECT UPON THE DISTRICT COURTS FAILURE TO CONSIDER AND.TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE PETITIONERS CONFINEMENT IN ITS DUE DILIGENCE INQUIRY?