Phillip L. Horrell v. Andrea Tack, Warden

Whether the 7th Circuit erroneously denied a COA, in contra­ vention of Slack v McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000); and when petition­ er's due process rights under Ake v Oklahoma, 470 U.S. at 83 were plainly violated, as the "access" Ake requires was denied?

Whether the District Court's denial of petitioner's motion for an evidentiary hearing in the USDC; in failing to adjudicate properly the issue on-the-merits, and without any consideration of the binding law(s) of Townsend v Sain, 372 U.S. 293 (1963), and of Matheney v Anderson, 253 F.3d 1025 (7th Cir.2001)(requiring that an evidentiary hearing be held), was error, and an error which the Seventh Circuit should have granted a COA to address, and correct?

Whether petitioner's plea was in violation of Boykin v Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969), by false admonishments, and an invol­ untary, unintelligent and unknowing waiver of the due process pro­ tections of Ake v Oklahoma, due to that misinformation at the plea hearing - and whether the Seventh Circuit's denial of a COA was in error, and additional protections to ensure against such wrongful waivers of Ake's protections in guilty plea cases should be insti­ tuted, by this case, to ensure against such due process violations? 4- Whether the District Court's failure to sanction Respondent's counsel for its rewording of grounds two and three of the §2254 habeas corpus petition, to gain an unfair advantage in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) - and its adopting and adjudication of those reworded/different grounds by the USDC, was error, when a timely, properly filed motion for sanctions addressing same was erroneously denied - and the Seventh Circuit should have issued a COA to address it? 5. Whether this case should be remanded for an evidentiary hearing, for the reasons pled/argued in the motion requesting same; and to potentially address a violation of Miller v Pate,-386 U.S. 1 (1967), though procedurally defaulted and not raised in the habeas petition - when petitioner is likely knowingly convicted by the utilization of false evidence, by the W.-.. Wasyliw letter?

Whether this Court should adjudicate the reworded grounds two and three, in the first instance, on-the-merits , as petitioner received no adjudication of them, by federal courts, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254; and due to the delay in having those federal constitutional violations, properly asserted and exhausted by the petitioner, being over five years and seven months at present; and to allow for petitioner to have his "day in court" on grounds two and three (which entail a plea of guilty in violation of Boykin v Alabama, and Ake v Oklahoma; and an Ake, due process violation, by ineffective assistance of counsel - as argued in this habeas case)?