Whether the petitioner DAMON Cook has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right pursuant to 28 USC 2253(c)(2) in order to obtain a certificate of appealability?

Question Presented No.1,3 2 The 28 USC 27.53(CX(2) Statute does Nor SfeciFY s|Mrat A PetitioneR Must Show That(1) durists OF Reason «Would Find I+ debatable WhetheR The District Court -|Abuced Its discretion IN denVing The Rule loa(bXlo) Motion -lAuld(Z) Jurists OF Reason Would Find I+ debatable ,|MetheR The UnderlYind Section[2254 Rtition_] States 2 |A Valid Claim oF The DeniaLof A Constitutional RiShT »»|SeeSLack v. McDaniel 529 US 413, 483 ua Nelson! v.WalkeR 121 F.3d 878, B32 |The 28 USC_2253(C(2) Statute ONY SPeciFies That The CoueT MAY IsSue A CertiFicAte oF APRaLAbility ONIY When is |The Petitioner HAS Made A SubStontiaL SHowing of The Denial oF A ConstitutionAL Right, Which The. Rtitionek ., IDAMaN Cook HAS Made A SubStanttial Cleat SHowind OF a lINSufficiency of The Evidence. of Force Which |AMount to A DeNiaL of DUE Frocess oF LAW, IA CONSHtUTONAL RiShT, IN VioLAtion OF The "TU th AMendMenT To The UN ited States CONSHTUTION.. "Therefore, A CorliFicate oF APPaalAbilitY Should Have Been _frsSued IN This Case PursuaNT To 28 USC 225302) ANd te INSufficiencY of The Evidence of Force IS A Meritorious CLAIM. Which AMouNT To AN Extraordinary licircumstance UNdeR Federal Rule loa(ble) PursuanNT TO le NS Ve (thik 2al') 851 F.3d 148, 150-153 . son eel Mel te aus lec Pe Rt Wee, ot Any Continued 5) QUESTION(S) PRESENTED . Mit Ps Ra Can hi e+itio DAM U @) Was AN AbuSe of Discretion y ° Seo Buck v. DAVis(2ZOIT) 137 S.CT. 159, 18 ZOIT U.S. Lexis 1429 WAT L.Ed. 2d bs See BYNOE Alolo F 3d At 48] (cook) See BYNoe v. BACA(HHCié2020) Allo F3d At A719 See Davis v. MoRoneY(Tthcit: 2017) , 85‘ F.3d TH8, 750-7153 (Cook) See United States v. Holtzman Othcit 985) TL F.2d 120, T25(Cook) We ReView FoR ‘Abuse oF Discretion’ A Districl Court’” Gee ByNoe v. BACA(GhCinia20) Gob F.3d 972,979, ASo_