Did the court of appeals err in denying petitioner's application for a COA as to his constitutional habeas claims where (i) a circuit judge found that the COA standard had been met and (ii) the court denied a COA based on its ruling on the merits of those claims

are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115 (2017) (quoting Miller -El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003)). As this Court has clarifi ed, this standard does not call for re view of the merits of a prisoner’s claims —indeed, it forbids it. Id. ; MillerEl, 537 U.S. at 33536. And where “a” single “circuit justice or judge” finds that this standard is met, 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1), a certificate of appealability (COA) must issue and a n appeal allowed. In this capital case, after making multiple findings on the merits of petitioner’s Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance claims, a single Eleventh Circuit judge ruled that he had failed to meet the COA standard. But Judge Adalberto Jordan, dissent ing from the denial of reconsideration of that ruling, explain ed why, in light of the record, petitioner had met the standard and declared that he would grant a COA . Here , not only “could” reasonable Circuit judges “disagree” over the district court’s denial of ha beas relief —they did. ii This case accordingly presents the following question on which the circuits are deeply divided and that several of this Court’s members have expressly determined warrants review: Did the c ourt of a ppeals err in denying petitioner’s application for a COA as to his constitutional habeas claims where (i) a circuit judge found that the COA standard had been met and (ii) the court denied a COA based on its ruling on the merits of those claims .