Did the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit err and abuse its discretion by refusing to grant Petitioner a Certificate of Appealability

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED | Did the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Third Circuit) err and . . | abuse its discretion by refusing to grant Petitioner a Certificate of Appealability since jurists of reasons could differ as to whether: | | ' 1, the district court judge unreasonably adopted the magistrate judge’s , Report and Recommendation (R&R) that erroncousty concluded that the Third. : . Circuit’s ruling in Gregg v. Rockview, 596 Fed. App’x 72, 76 n. 4 (3% Cir. 2015) (citing Grant y Lockett, 709 F.3d 224, 239 n. 10 an Cir. 2013), declaring that a witness’s willingness to testify is irrelevant under Strickland since such a witness could be subpoenaed, was not a constitutional ruling even though the case was based -.on and clarified Strickland, a constitutional ruling; a J ) 2. the district court judge in dismissing Petitioner’s habeas application us unreasonably adopted the magistrate judge’s R&R that erroneously concluded that ; oe the state appellate court’s decision affirming Petitioner’s conviction was based on an erroneously perceived lack of prejudice in counsel's not calling Edwards and. Williams at trial, not in the fact that the witnesses had expressed an unwillingness to testify and the state courts cited to “willingness to testify’ ’ as being a requisite fora finding of ineffectiveness; and — 3. the district court erred and unreasonably determined that Petitioner was not prejudiced by trial counsel’s failure to call two exculpatory eyewitnesses to the homicide for which Petitioner was convicted, including the victim’s wife, who would have implicated someone other than Petitioner as being the perpetrator and/or raised substantial doubt as to Petitioner’s involvement in the offense?