Did the Ninth Circuit clearly err when it denied Mr. Perez's request for a COA even though three reasonable jurists on Nevada's highest court already had disagreed about the merits of the issues Mr. Perez wished to raise?

QUESTION PRESENTED Mr. Perez is entitled to a certificate of appealability (“COA”) because reasonable jurists—three justices of the Nevada Supreme Court—have disagreed with their fellow justices as well as the District Court about the issues he wishes to raise on appeal. Yet the Ninth Circuit declined to issue a COA. The Ninth Circuit’s denial suggests a departure from the Fifth and Seventh Circuits, both of which routinely issue COAs when state appellate courts have divided on the merits of a constitutional question. Accordingly, the question presented is: Did the Ninth Circuit clearly err when it denied Mr. Perez’s request for a COA even though three reasonable jurists on Nevada’s highest court already had disagreed about the merits of the issues Mr. Perez wished to raise? i