Whether jurists of reason could debate the district court's conclusion that the detectives' actions were not a coordinated two-step interrogation technique

QUESTIONS PRESENTED IT WHETHER JURISTS OF REASON COULD DEBATE THE DISTRICT COURT'S CONCLUSION THAT THE DETECTIVES ACTIONS WERE NOT A CORRDINATED TWO-STEP INTERROGATION TECHNIQUE AND IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THIS COURT'S DECISIONS IN MISSOURI V. SEIBERT, 542 U.S. 600 (2004) AND MIRANDA V. ARIZONA, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), AND DID NOT VIOLATE MCCLENDON'S 5TH, 6TH, AND 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS (QUESTION OF GENERAL INTEREST AND IMPORTANCE). II WHETHER JURIST OF REASON COULD DEBATE THE DISTRICT COURT'S CONCLUSION THAT MCCLENDON DID NOT MAKE A SUBSTANTIAL SHOWING OF THE DENIAL OF HIS 5TH, 6TH, AND 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. (CONFLICT WITH THIS COURT'S DECISIONS IN MILLER-EL V. COCKRELL, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) AND BUCK V. DAVIS, 137 S.CT. 759 (2017)(QUESTION OF GENERAL INTEREST AND IMPORTANCE). (i)