Could reasonable jurists disagree with the District Court's rejection of Petitionen's claim that the State Courts' determination that he forfeited his right to counsel

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW I, Could reasonable jurists disagree with the District Court’s rejection of Petitionen’s claim that the State Courts’ determination that he forfeited his right to counsel is not a “decision contrary to, or involving an unreasonable application of,” clearly established federal law under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1) for want of a decision by this Court addressing the issue of “forfeiture” as opposed to “waiver” of the right to counsel and, if so, did the Court of Appeals err in denying a certificate of appealability on Petitionen’s right to counsel claim? II. Could reasonable jurists disagree with the District Court’s finding that a State appellate court’s determination tnat Petitioner’s right to counsel was violated does not make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” under § 2253 (c)(2) and, if so, did the Court of Appeals ern in determining that Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing that his right to counsel was violated by denying a certificate of appealability on his rignt to counsel claim? III. Could reasonable jurists disagree with the District Court’s finding that 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (e) and this Court’s decision in Cullen v. Pinnolster bars consideration of. materials proffered pursuant to Rule 7 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Case to reconstruct the State court record and show that the State Courts’ factual findings are unreasonable in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceedings and incorrect by clear and convincing evidence and, if so, did the Court of Appeals err: in denying a certificate of appealability of this issue? . , ,