Should the petitioner have been granted a certificate of appealability

QUESTION PRESENTED Should the petitioner have been granted a certificate of appealability where the State courts,U.S. District Court and Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the State court judgment did not violate the double inference rule by relying on evidence not of record in violation of the petitioner's right to confrontation and effective cross-examination of adverse witnesses against him contrary to this Court's holdings in Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510,47 S.ct. 745 (1927) & Gray v. Mississippi, 481 U.S. 648,107 S.ct. 2045 (1987) II.PARTIES The petitioner was convicted in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas(Ohio),for possession of herion which was affirmed by the Montgomery County,Ohio Court of Appeals and summarily affirmed by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Dayton and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and the respondent herein is the warden of the London Correctional Institution, London, Ohio. III.JURISDICTION This Supreme Court of the United States retains jurisdiction to act. pursuant to 28 & 28 U.S.C. Section 2101(c) IV.CONSTITUTIONAL & STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED In re Winship,397 U.S. 358 (1970); Jackson v. Virginia,443 U.S. 307 (1979);Ohio Revised Code Section 2901.05(A) 2 V.