Whether the lower court abused their discretion by denying a COA

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED QUESTON NUMBER ONE: Whether the lower court abused their discretion by denying Mr. Alexander a C.O.A. as it is debatable amongst of jurists of reason as to whether his Guilty Plea was entered “unknowingly and unintelligently” and VOID in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Ruling in Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), in which added an additional element in which must be proven to establish guilt for a violation of Section 922 (g) (1), thus, was his Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause Rights violated ? QUESTION NUMBER TWO: Whether the lower court abused their discretion by denying Mr. Alexander a C.O.A. as it is debatable amongst of jurists of reason as to whether his Superseding Indictment is fatally defective as it omits an essential element of the offense and required statutory language of 18 U.S.C. 922 (g) (1), thus, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Ruling in Rahaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), was his Fifth Amendment Grand Clause Rights and Sixth Amendment Rights violated ? QUESTION NUMBER THREE: Whether the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals failure to provide Mr. Alexander with a Written Opinion articulating a legal basis for the . ii. 11/13/2023 * denial of a Certificate of Appealability in which to provide this Court with a sufficient basis for review does this violate his Procedural due process of law; and U.S. Supreme Court precedents ? iii. 11/13/2023