Whether a court of appeals' unreasoned, one-page order summarily denying a certificate of appealability conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court requiring a limited threshold inquiry that is separate from and less burdensome than an ultimate merits determination

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether a court of appeals’ unreasoned, one-page order summarily denying a certificate of appealability, while citing the relevant statute but not the relevant precedent of this Court holding that a certificate of appealability must issue if jurists of reason could debate that habeas corpus relief should be denied, and relying solely on the reasoning of the final order of the district court, which in turn relied solely on “the reasons explained in this opinion for denying habeas corpus relief” to explain its denial of a certificate of appealability, conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court requiring a limited threshold inquiry that is separate from and less burdensome than an ultimate merits determination, and that asks only if the district court’s decision was “debatable.” Buck v. Davis, 137 S.Ct. 759, 773-75 (2017). 2. Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit misapplied, even if it properly stated, the stricture of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) that a certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” when it found no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.