[appointed
habeas counsel] are binding upon him by reason of assent or
acquiescence"; (4) "Whether flaws in the fact finding process used
by the Texas court regarding [his] competence preclude [a federal
court] from according deference to the state court findings"; (5)
"Whether an evidentiary hearing regarding [his] competence, with
the attendant funding for experts and discovery, is required to be
conducted in [district] court"; (6) "Whether a remand to this
[(district?)] court for an evidentiary hearing regarding [his
claims under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Strickland
v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)], with the attendant funding for
experts, discovery, and compulsory process, is required"; (7)
"Whether the summary excusal of the nine [venire members] with
doubts about the death penalty requires a new trial"; and (8)
"Whether [his] juror claims are procedurally barred...." The
district court denied a COA for each issue.
Delk seeks a COA from our court on ten issues. But, only four
of those ten were included in his COA requests to the district
court. The ten issues, in the order presented here, are: (1)
"Whether the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' post-conviction
refusal to fund a thorough mental health examination denied [him]
full and fair consideration of his claim of incompetence to proceed
at state habeas, which rendered the state evidentiary record
incomplete and unreliable, and its competence finding unworthy of
deference ..." (in district court COA request); (2) "Whether the
District Court erred in refusing to fund and conduct its own mental
health examination and evidentiary hearing [on his] claim of [his]
incompetence to proceed at federal habeas" (in district court COA
request); (3) "Whether the District Court erred in finding [him]
competent to be executed ..." (not in district court COA request);
(4) "Whether [trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by]
fail[ing] to investigate [his] medical and mental health background
..." (not in district court COA request); (5) "Whether the trial
court [erred by] excusing for 'cause' ... nine [venire members
based on their views regarding the death penalty] ..." (in district
court COA request); (6) "Whether [trial counsel rendered
ineffective assistance by] fail[ing] to attempt to rehabilitate the
nine excused [venire members] ..." (not in district court COA
request); (7) "Whether the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals'
refusal, at state habeas, to fund needed discovery, and compel the
attendance of ... witnesses ... [at the state evidentiary hearing]
denied [him] full and fair consideration of his Brady and
Strickland claims, which rendered their denial unworthy of
deference by the ... District Court" (in district court COA
request); (8) "Whether the prosecutors violated the Due Process
Clause by withholding from the defense impeaching information
bearing on the reliability of the 'future dangerousness' testimony
of Tina Delk" (not in district court COA request); (9) "Whether
[trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance] by failing to
investigate the background of ... Richard Frye and Tina Delk" (not
in district court COA request); and (10) "Whether the trial judge
violated the Due Process Clause and the