Did the Eleventh Circuit commit error in denying a COA for government misconduct, perjured testimony, and sentencing violations?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED (1) DID THE HONORABLE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN ATLANTA, GEORGIA COMMIT “PLAIN AND OBVIOUS ERROR" BY DENYING PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY ("COA") IN BEHALF OF "THE GOVERNMENT KNOWINGLY PRESENTING "FALSE STATEMENTS IN THE OPENING STATEMENT, AND ORCHESTRATING THE GOVERNMENT'S KEY WITNESS TO PRESENT PERJURED TESTIMONY AND CAPITALIZING ON THE PERJURED TESTIMONY DURING CLOSING ARGUMENTS TO OBTAIN THE GUILTY VERDICTS FOR DISTRICT COURT CASE NO. 9:15-CR-80003-DMM-5 ? (2) DID THE HONORABLE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN ATLANTA, GEORGIA COMMIT "PLAIN AND OBVIOUS ERROR" BY DENYING PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY ("COA") IN BEHALF OF THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DONALD M. MIDDLEBROOKS KNOWINGLY VIOLATING "FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULE 32" DURING AND AFTER PETITIONER'S SENTENCING HEARING ON OCTOBER 8TH, 2015 ? (3) DID THE HONORABLE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN ATLANTA, GEORGIA COMMIT "PLAIN AND OBVIOUS ERROR" BY DENYING PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY ("COA") IN BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT KNOWINGLY LYING ABOUT MATERIAL ELEMENTS OF FACTS TO THE HONORABLE DISTRICT JUDGE _ DONALD M. MIDDLEBROOKS DURING PETITIONER'S SENTENCING HEARING THAT WOULD HAVE AND STILL WILL HAVE CHANGED THE OUTCOME OF PETITIONER'S CONVICTIONS AND/OR SENTENCES, IN BEHALF OF DISTRICT COURT CASE NO. 9:15-CR-80003-DMM ? (4) DID THE HONORABLE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN ATLANTA, GEORGIA COMMIT "PLAIN AND OBVIOUS ERROR" BY DENYING PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY ("COA") IN BEHALF OF THE APPEALATE COUNSEL DELIBERATELY REFUSING TO RAISE PETITIONER'S PRESERVED FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULE 32 VIOLATION ARGUMENTS DURING PETITIONER'S DIRECT APPEAL ? li y" , a Se?