Ct. of Appeals denied defendant’s request for certificate of appealability after Dist. Ct. denied defendant’s second habeas petition challenging his murder conviction on grounds that his trial court interpreter was incompetent, that his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to object to said interpreter, and that he did not receive fair hearing on his state court post-conviction petition raising the interpreter issues. Defendant’s claims with respect to his interpreter and his counsel were barred as “second or successive” claims under 28 USC section 2244(b)(2) because he had failed to raise them in his first habeas petition when he could have raised said issues. Moreover, issue regarding fairness of his state post-conviction hearing was not addressable via instant habeas petition since: (1) any error in state collateral review proceeding cannot form basis for habeas relief; and (2) defendant failed to allege violation of any other independent constitutional right with respect to manner that State administered its post-conviction proceeding.