Did Mr. Dibble present a ground for relief as to which reasonable jurists could differ concerning the correctness of the district court's conclusion, thus requiring a COA?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Mr. Dibble filed a petition for habeas corpus relief from his state conviction for first degree murder. Mr. Dibble was sentenced to forty-five years’ imprisonment. The district court denied all of Mr. Dibble’s claims either on the merits or as being procedurally barred. Among those claims, Mr. Dibble argued that his right to due process was violated when the trial court instructed the jury on alternative theories of murder when the state’s theory of the case was that Mr. Dibble committed murder based on the burglary of dwelling. Burglary and residential burglary are mutually exclusive under Illinois law. Mr. Dibble appealed. The district court denied Mr. Dibble a certificate of appealability as to this ground. The Seventh Circuit also denied Mr. Dibble a certificate of appealability as to this ground. Accordingly, the case presents the following question: The question presented is: Did Mr. Dibble present a ground for relief as to which reasonable jurists could differ concerning the correctness of the district court's conclusion, thus requiring a COA? -ii