Did the courts below err in denying a Certificate of Appealability to review the holdings of the district court and the Nevada Supreme Court that Mr. Antonetti's trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the testimony of a medical examiner to a report that he did not author of an autopsy in an apparent murder case that he did not perform or attend as a violation of his rights under the Confrontation Clause as determined by Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) and other, prior and subsequent Supreme Court precedents?

QUESTION PRESENTED Did the courts below err in denying a Certificate of Appealability to review the holdings of the district court and the Nevada Supreme Court that Mr. Antonetti’s trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the testimony of a medical examiner to a report that he did not author of an autopsy in an apparent murder case that he did not perform or attend as a violation of his rights under the Confrontation Clause as determined by Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) and other, prior and subsequent Supreme Court precedents? ii