Whether the district court's assessment of the petitioner's constitutional claims was debatable or wrong, and whether the habeas corpus petition claims should have been resolved differently

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 4) Would reasonable jurists pind the district courts assessment of this petitioner '5 @onstitutional alaims te he debatable or Weng, or whether his ha heas Corpus petition claims Should have been resolved jna dipperent Manner er thot the ($5ues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement fo proceed ferther} to include, whether the distric Z Court was correct in ths procedural rulingésd? 2 was the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ dentalos his petitioner's. Gerfipicale of Appealabit'ty COOK.) proper > A) Did the circuit appellate court violote Bucky, Davis, 137 3.¢+. 759 (2017), when it inverted the sfatutry order af operations by first deciding the meriAs of this petition ecr's appeal, then justity #5 denial of the COA based on (#5 adjudication ep the actua/ merits, and, BY Was the Sixth Ciccurd Cour? of Appeals permitted fo . Circumven? fhe disdrict#t court assesgmens of this . petitioner's Const: tutlfona/ claims re justigy 143 denial oF this Cor any) petitioner's Con? 3) Peditioner's arrest and trial preceed ngs were premised ona warrant (later fo be found non existen /) the? since peses 4020 separa re Fourth Amend men? and/ or FourteentK{ Amendment claims £ A) Cana Me Laughlin violation be iNbu lated i'n validated ia reviewing Court determines probable cause (Is ao Mc Laugh tin vie lotion inde pendent of a Le ulewing Court's . determination of probable Cause) } and, B) Whether Prohable cause existed Cat the momen? of/prier fo he arrest) to justipy the arrest?