Whether a certificate of appealability (COA) debatability review under 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2) allows a circuit court to deny debatability of a constitutional claim by ignoring valid showings, repeating the district court's one-sided conclusions, and conflating standards

No question identified. : , i | QUESTIONS | : QUESTIONS (1) (5) THE EXTRAQRDINARY PUSHBACK CONTRA THE DEBATABILITY REVIEW STANDARDS OF MILLER-EL AT THE CIRCUIT COURT LEVEL | | In the context of the 6" circuit court of appeals 28 U.S.C. §2254 certificate of appealability case, Cody v. McConahay, 2022 U.S. | App. LEXIS 579 (App. A; “Cedy” or the “Order), and its decision upon debatability review of petitioner’s showings made | pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2) on, as a primary matter, his constitutional claims of the denial of his 6" Amendment right to access counsel of choice and his claim of “procedural” actual innocence; and, secondarily, on his other habeas claims: (1) Does a certificate of appealability (“COA”) debatability review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2) mean that the ‘COA panel may deny debatability of a constitutional claim, or of any of its dispositive parts exists, where the panel for and in such a review ignores valid showings the petitioner made on the facts, on the law, and on mixed questions; merely repeats the likewise one-sided 28 U.S.C. §2254(d) — suitable-only conclusions by the district court on the same; and conflates “reasonable jurists would not disagree,” “...could not disagree,” and “...would not | debate” standards with a “...could debate” or “...could disagree” standard, and still be said to be following the framework approach mandate of Buck v. Davis, 137 S.Ct. 759, 774, that a COA panel should “...[A]sk only if the : ... decision was debatable”? (2) Did Cody do any or all of the above, deciding implicitly the important federal question of what §2253(c)(2) means, in a way or ways which conflict with the framework approach mandate of Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) and Buck or related relevant decisions of this Court? The following questions (3), (4) and (5) have as an underlying query, based upon a No answer to (1) and a Yes answer to (2), whether Cody went further than merely making an isolated erroneous decision on what a COA debatability review is and must be, under federal law, implicating other problems of national importance relating to the constitutional right of habeas corpus and to disparate treatment of similarly situated petitioners in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, which require the Court’s attention instantly: (3) Is Cody’s decision illustrative of continuing post-Buck decisions of other U.S. circuit court COA panel decisions on debatability in conflict with Miller-El and Buck or related relevant decisions of this Court? ' ; . ile | | (4) Does Cody conflict with decisions of other courts of appeal COA decisions not in conflict with Miller-El and Buck on the same matter? (5) Do other circuit court COA panel decisions conflict with each other, intra-circuit or inter-circuit, on the same matter? The following questions (6) and (7) are queries about Cody’s rulings on ultimate statements of law on important federal questions pertaining to the meaningfulness of the 10° Amendment right of the states and their people to make their own procedural default rules and the 6"" Amendment right of the accused to access counsel, outside of, and irrespective of, Cody’s purported debatability errors: QUESTION 6: RES JUDICATA RULINGS CONTRA THE STATE’S RIGHT TO SET ITS OWN RULES (6) Did Cody’s denial order (App. A, *8 -*10) decide the important federal question of what the 10° Amendment, or U.S. Supreme Court rulings motivated in whole or in part thereby, mean, as to when, or even if, a federal court can pronounce a statement on what a state rule holds (instantly, on a judicially created res judicata claim preclusion ; procedural bar), without citation to a relevant or applicable state statute or rule of court, and without clear and firmly established approval by the state supreme court, by pronouncing such a statement (App. A, *9, *17), in conflict with the relevant decisions of this Court in Johnson v. Lee, 578 U.S. 605, 136 S. Ct. at 1804-05 (2016) and Walker v. Martin, 562