Should the Eleventh Circuit provide a sufficient explanation of its order denying a COA in order that a reasonable jurist could ensue its reasoning did not improperly include the substantive merits?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED . The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied Mr. Scarlett's application for a certificate of appealability and reconsideration of the COA decision, but its denial consisted of a boilerplate order that failed to identify the factual predicates or legal premises necessary for its ruling. The Eleventh Circuit's perfunctory order not only forecloses meaningful review, but prevents any court from determining whether the Eleventh Circuit complied with this Court's ruling in Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759 (2017). Should the Eleventh Circuit provide a sufficient explanation of its order denying a COA in order that a reasonable jurist could ensue its reasoning did not improperly include the substantive merits? A federal appeals court should decide whether to grant a certificate of appealability based on a cursory assessment of the merits, and then only to the extent necessarily to determine if reasonable jurists would find the district court resolution debatable. The appeals court, without briefing, reviewed the district court record and denied a COA despite sentencing counsel's failure to identify that the district court violated U.S.S.G. § 1Bl.3 and U.S.S.G. Guideline Amendment 790. . Jurists of reason would find the district court's assessment of trial counsel's performance debatable and the appellate court functionally performing . a pre-COA merits analysis wrong. Should the appellate court have granted a certificate of appealability before deciding an COA application? . -i,