Whether, under this Court's precedent in Miller-El v. Cockrell and Buck v. Davis, it is sufficient for obtaining a Certificate of Appealability under 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2) that an applicant make a showing that reasonable jurists could debate whether the petition states a valid claim of a constitutional right

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED , Whether, under this Court's precedent in Miller-El. v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) and buck v. Davis, 137 §.ct. 759 (2017), it is sufficient for purposes of obtaining a Certificate of Appealability, under 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2), that an applicant make a showing that: "reasonable jurists could debate" whether the a petition states a "valid claim of a constitutional right;"' that is whether a teasonable jurist could debate whether ‘(or, for that matter agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner, or that issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further, in order to make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional. right"? Whether, in the denial of a Certificate of Appealability by the U.S. Court of Appeals, it is necessary that the Court give a statement of reasons suficient that a litigant understand the deficiencies in the application, or whether the simple claim that, appellant has not made a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutidnall: right," is all that is necessary, even when, as to each claim below, ‘the applicant has made a showing that "jurists of reason could debate whether the petition should have been resolved.in a different. manner''? .