Whether the Court of Appeals erred when it contravened long-established decisional law

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED ‘ 1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred when it contravened long-established decisional law to : deny a pro se habeas petitioner a certificate of appealability (COA) under the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA); 28 USC §2253(c ), and determined no jurist of reason could debate whether a district court could conduct a habeas review under §2254(d) without first obtaining for consideration the relevant record upon which the state court decision was based? 2. Whether the Court of Appeals is abusing the COA process under the AEDPA when it issues summary denial orders which contravene long-established principles of habeas review and controlling decisional law, to arbitrarily screen out pro se habeas cases from the heavy volume of cases flooding its docket?