Opinion ID: 75827
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Certificate of Appealability

Text: 31 Scher sought a certificate of appealability, but the district court denied one. Scher then sought one from this court, and we granted it, on the following three issues: 32 1) Whether the Capital Collateral Regional Counsel is truly dedicated to the best interests of Sanchez-Velasco, as is required by the first prong of the Whitmore v. Arkansas test for next friend standing, including whether being truly dedicated to the best interests requires that the next friend have some significant relationship with the real party in interest. Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163, 110 S.Ct. 1717, 1727, 109 L.Ed.2d 135 (1990). 33 2) Whether the district court employed adequate procedures to determine if Sanchez-Velasco was competent to waive his habeas petition. Cf. Mata v. Johnson, 210 F.3d 324 (5th Cir.2000). 34 3) Whether, if the court did use adequate procedures, it clearly erred in finding that Sanchez-Velasco was competent to waive his habeas petition.