Whether a Certificate of Appealability should issue where the district court failed to conduct de novo review of the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which Bauer objected

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED In Arizona, when a crime ts Statsterly defined as one “Committed against aretner perton} the vicki i an escertial element othe oSense andthe Stade must allege and prove the thentity of the victim as an element oS the oSense. ale u. Olquin, (66 PBA 438, 283,-33 (Ariz. ch. of Apeats 2007). Bauer's indictment or 4euual exgisctation ofa minor — a “Dangers Crime Against Children’ — failed to allege the entity oF any Sackwal anor’ viehm(A). On habeas, Bauer argued that the unpublrched memoranlum decisions against his inadequate welice alarms weve urrtenable undey Law and eonteary-t0 fpptendi v. Nes Serco, 520 US. Uleb, 405, Sot (2.000). 1. Whether a Cerificate of Appealabitty should ixcue where the district caurt Sled to conduct de novo veniew of “the portrons as the Report and Recommendcefion to which (Raver obiected,” Klamath Siskiyou Willands Ch: v DADAM, S24 3d fost, 1028 Gh Cr, Ano, and thus (1) jurists of ason— , under a. correct analyse of Rawer’s eres to this Casts Coselau)— would Kind the Wnatick courts vals on the constitutional clam debatable, Miller-El v. Cockyel\, S24 US. 383 BID Bena); or @) juvists Could Conclude the issues pre~ sented axe adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. 534 0.4, af30H. a. Whether a CoreSicake of Appealaliitrly should tesue becanse Bauer has at least made ao “substantial shaurng ofthe deal of a consttutonal Fegirt.” 2 SC. 2353 Of. t.