Whether the petitioner Damon C. Cook had a constitutional right to a certificate of appealability

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1.) WhetheR The Petitioner DAmMon C KH A Substattic Ls hovdid gt The Denhal of iN ade ONStitu A i9t urs + To 28USc TPB ENE) EN Order Te eRe A oo CertiFicate oF APPeaLAbility ? : 2.) WhetheR There Was INSuFFicieNT Evidence of Fotce To EStablish PatitioneR DAMON Caook”® Gujlt+ BeYond A Rensenable. DoubT ? | See PeoPle v. Griffin (2004) | 33 CAL.4H (015 Ilo CAL. RP+R. 3d 891 GY P.3d 1089 3.) WhetheR The Petitioner Damon Cook Suffered CRUEL And UNSUAL Punishment IN Violation of The ra) 2 tA The. State Failed To Prove ? oF Se Teane For Crimes See KellY v. Roberts (lothcir. 1993) 998 F.2d 802,809-10,FN 11. See Fiote v. White (2ool) 531 U.S.225, 229 I2TS-Cr WIZ, 148 L.Ed. 2d 629 See. TUan H. v. Allen (their. 2005) YOR F.3d (22. See UNited States v. DeSeniA(2o01) DloF 3d 150, (54-15 See Gregg v. Geor9iA (191) 428 U.S. 153, 173 Vb S.ct. 2904, 2925 ConTiNUed erittol Mo U Ol bk \ Was AN Abuse of Discretion ? Seo Buck v. DAVis (2.017) 137 S.CT. 159, 178 ZolT U.S. Lexis L429 ANT Led. 2d 1 | |