Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): of petitioner’s TDCJ medical and mental health records, is wholly credible. Therefore, petitioner’s Ford/Panetti claim lacks any arguable merit. Petitioner is entitled to neither federal habeas corpus relief from this Court nor a continuation of his stay of execution. IV. Certificate of Appealability A. The Necessity for Obtaining a CoA The AEDPA converted the “certificate of probable cause” previously required as a prerequisite to an appeal from the denial of a petition for federal habeas corpus relief into a “Certificate of Appealability” (“CoA”). See Hill v. Johnson, 114 F.3d 78, 80 (5th Cir.l997)(recognizing the “substantial showing” requirement for a CoA under the AEDPA is merely a change in nomenclature from the CPC standard); Muniz v. Johnson, 114 F.3d 43, 45 (5th Cir.l997)(<HOLDING>). The CoA requirement supersedes the previous 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the standard of review for the sufficiency of the evidence is the same as the standard for denying a motion for a directed verdict (B) holding that even if the standard for waiver is clear the standard was not met (C) holding the standard for obtaining a coa is the same as for a cpc (D) holding that the standard for a motion for judgment on the pleadings is the same as the standard for a motion to dismiss (E) holding that the standard for supplementing an ea is the same as for an eis
Output (English): holding that the standard of review for the sufficiency of the evidence is the same as the standard for denying a motion for a directed verdict