Whether the lower court erred in dismissing petitioner's claims for violation of their First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion

issues presented are limited to just the question of if a COA should have been issued or denied, and not the underlying merits of the §2255, which are not, specifically relevant.) , : 1. Given that this Court held in Slack v. McDaniel, 529 US 473 (2000) that a Certificate of Appealability ("COA") shall not be granted if "no reasonable jurist" could find the court's decisions "debatable or wrong" (id at 484), was it an improper abuse of discretion for the District Court and the Court of Appeals to deny the Petitioner a COA without explanation or opinion (but for the boilerplate assertion that no reasonable jurist could find the Court's decision wrong or debatable, atla Slack), despite the fact that the record . of the case and the pleadings ‘to the Court of Appeals contained two (2) seperate affidavits from a "reasonable jurist" who specifically testified under oath that the lower court's rulings in the case were “wrong or debat2. Did the Trial and Appellate Courts err by supplanting thier own,. subjective opinion of what a "reasonable jurist" would find debatable or wrong under Slack, instead of applying the Slack standard objectively and given the fact that there were two (2) affidavits from a reasonable jurist who 4 gucifically, an attomey who is currently practicing in federal and state Lav with over , 40 years of trial experience. (See both affidavits included in the attached