Did the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit exceed its scope of the COA (Certificate of Appealability) analysis when the court denied appealability to the petitioner's claims that were denied relief by the state and district court?

QUESTION PRESENTED A)Did the United Stactes Court oPAppeals fy athe Seventh Circuit exceed its Scope of tHe C OA (Certificate of appealability) analysis When the Court denied | appealability tothe Petrtoner's Claims thet were denied Pelle? by the State and DistojetCourt 2 QTLs the United States CourtokA ppeols forthe Seventh Circutt!s Scope ofthe CoA ana lysis in Conflict with the United States Supreme Court Scope ofthe COA ann! y5hs Q 3) Did the Petttioner demonsdrocte incfective assistance af Counsel to his Claims 2 4) Ls the District and Sdorte Courts assessment ofthe . Petitioner’ Chins debatable? i TASLE OF CONTENTS: Question Presented. 2-225, 5 5 are aa te L Tabieof Contests 4 clea a a a eS 7 Table ob Aotherttres i a oe a a a ns OT Opinion bebwes. 2 2 2 a ae ee a ee e4 Disdictiona+o... sean meee ener es sae on | Stututery ond Censtitsticnal Provishns 7, nvolved sense X Strtement oPthe Case ao a ee ae re oe 7 Reason fer Granting the Wart , Ly The Checuit Coust did net debrmine iF the Rt Menen!s Claims were reasonably debutable then he Court dened trie ily tethe Olaimas, The Cait only detarnahned de Merits oF the Claims in which is Chentophe Precedupe .. 280 ve 13,35 A. The Seventh Cinoutt's Scope of the, COA analysis is Ja Conflict With the U.S, Supreste. Caurtle Scope ofthe CoA analy SE soe in Penge cee 4935 A-Beowse the Petitioner has Sheitn that he has recejved inePhestive Conse/ under Sixth kucadmenfe scare oes | y 35 : 4, Beewsety Pet foner bas Shevin tet the Stole and Distict Courtls resolvtn ofhfy Chai iS ape, varenscnable and debatable.» 4, ey Conclusion ene + oss an bee ee ae ee oy 33 PPL AIX . fe den and order of the Déstafet COTM oer anneearh Opinion ok State Covet, Appeal From Post en vickisn relichna ae B Applicativa Fentert toate of Appeslability. a Orden denying requestfy p Appealabrinty . Ho tm om me ove fy Pettien fer reheaming Br request of Appenla bility lbogncoe E Orderdenying reheating Fer request oF Ap pen abl lity Aenean F Robert E. Davis V. State 45 A03-IR03-CR-J¥B (EnJ2013).» GC Deposition of Krystle GOIN peek eee een oe “7 ae i Depesrtion of Aniya Lauisen tna” ame gh bene ae mee oT Probable Cause ob Ydawit, No.4 602-/Jo7-Ma,5. sascend KK . i