Does the Eighth Circuit's practice of issuing unexplained blanket denials of certificates of appealability in capital habeas cases conflict with 28-U.S.C-2253, Miller-El-v-Cockrell, Hohn-v-United-States

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Does the Eighth Circuit’s practice of issuing unexplained blanket denials of certificates of appealability in capital habeas cases conflict with 28 U.S.C.§ 2253, and this Court’s decisions in Mi//er-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003), and Hohn v. United States, 524 U.S. 236 (1998), by preventing a condemned prisoner from obtaining meaningful appellate review on a first habeas corpus petition? 2. Was the denial of a COA proper on Petitioner’s claim under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), when the state court reasoned that St. Louis County’s history of Batson violations was irrelevant without a specific connection to Petitioner’s case? 3. Was the denial of a COA proper on Petitioner’s claim that trial counsel performed ineffectively by failing to investigate and present evidence of the impact of pervasive community violence, including that perpetrated by the police — a claim that the district court said was not “substantial” under Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012), simply because trial counsel presented unrelated evidence of child abuse and neglect suffered by Petitioner? i