Whether the discretion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to deny a certificate of appealability (COA) under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) is consistent with constitutional and statutory provisions involved

No question identified. : Queckions Presinked Wenor Ware TWaed Circuit Courk ov affects Olassod wke. discretion i denyicry govt roca Cedi, coke ot C.YDeCA clality (2) Lisk & Posts es EN Qorkies OP Qac OM no Cauer Doge GQ) Tole ok contents CP\AONS \atlad oI Questrcons Eresented Dun sdrclion DY Coriiudronal and statutory Prduis\ ons ‘\avolved Ne cLelemonk o& Mae cosh ty Teotaras 4 Xoc Qron\ SOG, ae ak (s , Gi) , Toldo oF autlocikies cited Woan v.Uniked Gtobes 504 US ISG (1404) Mors ate Ve Ruon Soe Ud \ (019) Quacltr Ve Dowrs \AF Led dl Caory Vv dO. ons Hela Tha onion oF Wa dd Ciccnit Court of onkeas is cA. bo. VATE . Tne othaion af WG HAs Couck Poe Dan Atak de of Odotsare 5 (\) ; DUC Wn oksar Tha Judgement oF We Qe caccurk Court & aQQeals Was wnteth on BA4AZ — THD Jumsdicton oF AWS Court << \nuroWeh Onder a®usce $\I540) Ts or hon : .S hora t\ud Oursarot by 2G USC. 9 LOICA ‘ G Cand akvon and Skobukary Praos eion& \nocloed in Yann v.Unikad Ckekes S24 US .226 W99) Rna Suprene. Caurk Ackeemineds Anck Aeneas Re coche cote OX ARPOALolA' lity cauld lee lorolgint to Wnt Supcene C oork Wrong ao Wak & Ceerocasn. In’ ts decision Wan Courk Skabed “we Snald Wars Cock Ins Sursdtckion under 819S4ud boc wired Aanicls oG cpgicatinng Lac corsQicctes of aQaal obilily tay a cist Sutoe Or & Ponal 8G OG caork o& agpeats Mad.dconelly (H) We. Coury of Voc We a4 cvcewk NA ee ee A Qe, onec cock Creche of appealability | Avant Yoo deme and Wak JuAs ravi Lntreed Adlacke Word agcee Mag Wao dleayt art Qrocab Ucally Adwwlked ond arwonee avd aot Aci Cou ond QeedussCe OC a WoC ace\ nat ow Jus ict MaCesrory Lo OWertame War eSrd. | &) Ron done Cor orontine, ne Loni The Leite Gtobes Court of Appec's Yor the Lira Cireor* Qousd ASCE AA ‘ay aon VOW colioW ; ondes Rulo (dO bd os. Sokeral SAILS a& cu Procedure toy bsregard ay oskoblidned Precedent MS Wis Cousk \3 Mork. We V Tyan Sboo us \ (2008) Uw excusos Ovocedurn AM aK Udon Man Unbeslyion oWebor ohighnca aX Qo rantieckionm Caunsdl VS a be leohicl one. Lada cs to Sey Wek vw Pricaner Musk Aunonsltale Mrck Yao clot nas mest A Coc MON (BUR “ooly AGE agple ant Ams made O SLlastankie\ Snatikaa o& a heme d oS n~ canstikuk sonal cia\nt 7352 (1) @ 1a Deb ness corkvcore aX appeor| ros’ bd Gi. cmlones Kaman strated CAUSA Or Proceduce\ ACol¥ loy Aas, nol od Cantiedion Cevmsei Ios mee cki0e vader Wao aheve ond skonbord, and Mat We Lnderlycg Clown \noS Gam OOK \n no cr Cum cbances i WAis Cask Yao ye cacon\ Couck Oo cbOecls . lane) KS AKG Cee bio \a env icrcr : ar vontss CON maior, Te YO | cacets canelusor brat deKroned | (6) Oe ] Claims are groceducclly aFoul ted | amt Wor ne dvd oak Shoo Coue ond : Ore sndver Jaws agar PLE Cedenrar Caer LOW 12. Burch v. Dow s \attedad \ Wd @ Gkruck Acid Yao Skandard of CON astk Qeaced Yo \nendy oF kucdan on ges brone Buch by deciding \nts Com on We actual Marks Gede-cdsrretigy even Woes Yro cleats are Aare he 2 . tlese. pok\ronor eared Mack ®t Vs Ryon 5OOUS\ (30\ Whadn alods feo We eX CAsa of low ko chk Who . Qaroner Can Qnev Wt original op qlee Coonst\ LOGS mole ddo a, . he Ceduase 0 Wa th crccwe Xe issue a (CoN Om & dtloakoWe clonm of YaetFeckiue assistance | TS AM clase of discrehon Qec this Courts aprnion 39 Kudku , Oars } | (1) ~ | Conclusion a “Wo gelakvon Qoe n Wek at Cocdvacan Shand ioe aco eds reqechCall v crontted . ANG) ae VV Vabdodn ‘RO. . Smvyenc De \arry Oded 2 Les (a (3) |