Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit contravened this Court's holding in Terrell v. Morris, 493 U.S. 1 (1989) (per curiam), when it affirmed a Federal District Court decision that was not the District Court's actual decision?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ; OL Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit contravened this Court's holding in Terrell v. Morris, 493 U.S. 1 (1989) (per curiam), when it affirmed a Federal District Court decision that was not the District Court's actual decision? Il. The state court concluded that petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to public trial . was violated when the courtroom (for an entire phase of trial) was ordered closed to the . public without the trial court considering any of the factors illuminated in Waller v. Georgia, 468 U.S. 39 (1984). In light of that state court determination, and this Court's holding in Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (2010), did the United States Court of : Appeals for the First Circuit.error by concluding that petitioner failed to demonstrate : the violation of a constitutional right, as its sole basis for denying certificate of appealability from denial of both the petitioner's §2254 habeas petition, and his Rule | 60(b)(6) motion to vacate? . . iif. Defense counsel testified that she would have objected to the courtroom closure : that took place for all of jury selection during petitioner's trial had she been notified. In view of that testimony, did the court officer's surreptitious order to close the courtroom during petitioner's trial constitute a Sixth Amendment denial of counsel resulting from state interference "preventing [counsel] from assisting the accused during a critical ; stage of the proceeding," United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 659 n.25 (1984)? If so, “ X _ did the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit error by concluding that ‘ petitioner failed to demonstrate the violation of a constitutional right, in its order denying a certificate of appealability from denial of both the petitioner's §2254 habeas petition, and his Rule 60(b)(6) motion to vacate? ;