Whether the District Court's plain error in finding Claims 37, 86, 93, 100, and 120 were not raised in the first state habeas corpus petition, and its denial of the claims as barred solely on that erroneous basis, should have required the Court of Appeals to address and decide the claims even without a certificate of appealability

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Whether the District Court’s plain error in finding Claims 37, 86, 93, 100, and 120 were not raised in the first state habeas corpus petition, and its denial of the claims as barred solely on that erroneous basis, should have required the Court of Appeals to address and decide the claims even without a certificate of appealability under Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776, 785 (1987) and Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 422 (1995). 2. Whether the Court of Appeals imposed a certificate of appealability standard in conflict with Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000), Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100 (2017), and Miler-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003), which in turn ran afoul of Burger, 483 U.S. at 785 and Kyles, 514 U.S. at 422. i