Has the Fourth Circuit Court of appeals effectively side stepped the COA inquiry, without expressly saying so, where the court has declined to analyze a state court's prejudice determination to narrow the circumstances under which a state prisoner can proceed under 28 U.S.C, 2253(c)?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED | This petition presents two important issues concerning a state court’s prejudice determination on direct ° review, 28 U.S.C. §2254(d); and the appropriate application of sidestepping the Certificate of Appealability Inquiry, 28 U.S.C. 2253(c), after this court’s decision in Buck v Davis, 137 S.Ct. 759 (2017). Since this court’s decision, in Buck v Davis, id., holding that the COA statute sets forth a two-step process. Circuit Courts of appeals have been cautioned that the initial determination on whether a claim | is reasonably debatable, and, if so, an appeal in the normal course. 28 U.S.C. §2253(c). As a result this | court held that at the first stage, the only question is whether the applicant has shown that “jurist of | reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or could conclude | the issue presented are adequate to proceed further.” ‘ | | In the ordinary case where someone has already filed for this first round of collateral relief this question would be raised for second and successive authorization, see 28 U.S.C. §2244. in the odd set of j | circumstances where a federal court declines to analyze a state court’s prejudice determination under | AEDPA/Brecht he is authorized to seek relief in collateral review only to reopen the final judgment. In Mr. Cheeks; case the district court ruled that the state court’s prejudice determination was a question of state constitutional law. After he filed for collateral relief, Mr. Cheeks’ only recourse, to reopen the district court’s final judgment, is found in Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 60(b). . ! After the district court denied Mr. Cheek’s Rule 60(b} motion, he sought a COA in the Fourth Circuit : | Court of appeals under 28 U.S.C. 2253(c) and the court of appeals turned a blind eye to a state court’s | prejudice determination during its COA inquiry. Thus, Mr. Cheeks presents, for resolution, the question that follows: | 1) Has the Fourth Circuit Court of appeals effectively side stepped the COA inquiry, without expressly saying so, where the court has declined to analyze a state court’s prejudice determination to narrow the circumstances under which a state prisoner can proceed under 28 U.S.C, 2253(c)? i -y