Did the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals err in denying a Certificate of Appealability when the petitioner raised debatable constitutional issues

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED \) Did We VS. Cousk of Appeals foc We Ninth Grarct ae whin a Aanied Wee CesrRicate of appealivility WANaS THEE WEEE m= Lact muthore denals/ violations of Lonstituhenal vignrs [sives Set before dhe Biswice Gow, where aA jurist of Ceason would Ring \e debatav ie aa) eal Course WOds Lorrectr in its proceedca\ CULng 5 InOMaIng YErtwel ond wmusuat Punish marr, C.Qwe Lo efectine Caunsel, denial of C2enSenable bail, dwe PrOUSS , OMd Speedy Wat -and all -wse 6 ignss had been Jioladed, ond were etn Vuoladeds win the eiiginal perihan or iti Flaws Grous was filed, and aS amondad--and dee Store Courrk ve onkrl Sak FtNo rad \qnoted peri haner Such Hook no appeal lo We state's appellate Coane Coulh be made’ 2) Did He Ysicuk Cor err whin ik dadmiesed fetihenerts Wabeos Corpus achen on the basis of the ceguirement of 2xhaushen and s0 the geren buns, COrrectly sougnt, on He basis of the jwstiticatben Lendared by Pi Hanes “Hank the Slate Court had. ignored +hiet initial peritian' not being Crediele, Wheeas 28U,5.C-§ 2254 (6 VIE allows Lor the gearing OF Writ winen re Shate’s Holeas Corpus proceedures Vowe \peen rendered Innefecture, Wnien Shoutd Cory over into § 2244 COMES, And versal Cote lawn Codoral intervention i§ justified vnens Reta ordinary CSoumstances | Younger v. Horris, 401 y-8.3% UAH), and \oefore Hre dbishictCowk Here was no issue of minima] dehouy Cond Perimence not gwing ~ne SHE Coust a enepning ful opporhmily ho Oddress HOw oIms, Where Loreos Cos pus was poe nen aving ho he ConSidared by them. Page ar