Where the constitutional issues raised was to the degree that should have been debatable among jurist of reason, and were not lacking any factual basis in the record. And the conviction resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court preceedings, when case law supported a different outcome

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED . : 1. Where the constitutional issues raised was to the degree that should have been debatable among jurist of reason, and were not lacking any factual basis in the record. And the conviction resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable Getermination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court preceedings, when case law supported a different outcome. : 2. Where the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals did not issue an opinion, where as, this Court reiterated that a prisoner seeking a COA need only demonstrate "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 3. Should petitioner have been allowed ‘the evidentiary : hearing he requested of the district court in this habeas proceeding for the purpose of attempting to determine whether the affidavit "ONLY" hearing in State court that was provided by Mr. Bruce Smith, attorney for petitioner at trial, gave credence to the hearing being fair and impartial, when petitioner did : not get .the opportunity to participate in the hearing by affidavit or otherwise. Even though, on two (2) occasions Mr. Smith called petitioner a lier, and petitioner was denied his Sixth Amendment right under the Confrontation Clause to cross-examine Mr. Smith. 4. Where petitioner was denied his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. More than 32-months after arrest. (E