Whether a prisoner must prove that some jurists would grant habeas corpus

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Second Circuit held, contrary to the holdings of Supreme Court ; considering the question, a prisoner seeking a Certificate of Appealability (COA) must prove before the issuance of a COA, that some jurists would grant the petition for habeas corpus. 1. Whether when the district court denies relief on the merits of a habeas petition, a prisoner satisfies the standard set by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong? 2. Whether an ailing jury instruction by itself so infected Petitioner’s trial that the resulting conviction is a valid claim of the denial of a petitioner's constitutional right and that jurists of reason could disagree with the district | court's resolution of his/her constitutional claims by issuing a COA? Whether | this Court in Salman v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 420 (2016) defined a jury instruction of “personal benefit” may be inferred based upon the test of meaningfully close personal relationship for insider trading and whether that constitutes a new substantive rule of law controlling the outcome of a case? . 3. Whether the Magistrate’s expression of incredulity and skepticism as to the absence of evidence at trial that Petitioner ever gave her tippers any benefits (i.e. stock tips), and the trial judge’s “relaxed” jury instruction which rested on the circumstance of weak friendship between the tippers and the tippee, demonstrated that Petitioner’s constitutional claims are debatable among jurists of reason? ; i INTERESTED PARTIES There are no