Should the Ninth Circuit or the Federal District Court of Idaho have issued a COA on Petitioner's claims

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Should the Ninth Circuit or the Federal District Court of Idaho have issued a COA on Petitioner’s claims based on the evidence that Idaho courts consistently apply obsolete and unconstitutional case law from United States v. DeCoster, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 326, 487 F.2d 1197, 1201 (1973) to ineffective assistance of counsel claims which is in conflict with and contrary to the governing legal rules set out in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)? 2. In denying Petitioner a COA, as well as relief, can the Federal District Court of Idaho, on | its own, and contrary to Wilson v. Sellers, 138 S. Ct. 1191-92 (2018), inject Idaho state law, not referenced by the Idaho state courts, into its decision? Is it proper for the Idaho federal court to try and come up with any rationale that could have supported the state courts decisions, or must it follow Supreme Court precedent and accede to the specific | reasons given by the state courts? | | 3. Did the Ninth Circuit utilize the appropriate standard for denying Petitioner’s request for a COA in accord with this Court’s precedent? | ; | | | | |