Whether the Ninth Circuit's summary denial of a certificate of appealability complies with this Court's precedents requiring that a COA be granted if the issues are debatable among jurists of reason

QUESTION PRESENTED . This Court has consistently and repeatedly held that the lower courts may not deny a certificate of appealability (“COA”) because they think the 2254 or 2255 applicant ) will ultimately lose on the merits. Rather, a COA must be granted if the issues are debatable among jurists of reason. See e.g. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-337 (2003); Buck v. Davis, 137 S.Ct. 759, 774 (2017). The Ninth Circuit typically denies a COA by a two judge motions panel in an order that states (at most) that the applicant has not made the “substantial showing of the denial ofa constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The only recourse is to file a motion for reconsideration that will be referred to the same two judge motions panel. Salgado v. Garcia, 384 F.3d 769, 775 (9th Cir. 2004). The question presented is this: Should certiorari be granted to decide how much detail the order denying a COA should contain in order to ensure that the Circuit Court has complied with Slack v. McDaniel, Miller-El, and Buck v. Davis? i