Was the appellate court's summary denial of a certificate of appealability (COA) reciting that it had 'carefully reviewed the original file of the district court'—sidestepping the facial inquiry whether any issue in the application was debatable among reasonable jurists—an exorbitant application of the statutory standard as this Court has construed it to square it with the Suspension Clause?

Questions Presented for Review I. Was the appellate court’s summary denial of a certificate of appealability (COA) reciting that it had “carefully reviewed the original file of the district court”—sidestepping the facial inquiry whether any issue in the application was debatable among reasonable jurists—an exorbitant application of the statutory standard as this Court has construed it to square it with the Suspension Clause? II. Would reasonable jurists find it debatable or wrong that the abuse of respondent’s physical custody over petitioner to deny him evidence on which to construct or support his grounds for relief and to deny him confidential correspondence with §2255 counsel—together with appointed counsel’s refusal to provide him criminal discovery—has not prolonged the impediment to his pursuit of the relief the Suspension Clause guarantees? III. Would reasonable jurists find it debatable or wrong to uphold a conviction and sentence based on a suppressed premise in a plea agreement, when neither the facts the lay accused perceived nor any explanation from appointed counsel put him on notice that respondent and the courts would deem an admission to participating in local intrastate telephone calls to trigger Commerce-Clause jurisdiction?