Whether the court of appeals erred in denying a certificate of appealability when the petitioner's claim meets the Slack v. McDaniel standard for a constitutional rights violation

No question identified. : Supr^toe of fhc, (A /jI frau/V Cbrjj&fj*r'p( H-f/( -3^ ^ee ^ Pe-/-,-fio A-for' U r» f ff'f Orfiorar / i' *B*Z SO til” *”'?**'* *8Ulj QUEST,0N(S) PRESENTED T*J«pk>*6 ' ft#) <>53 S,o / fiu|e \OfCoi>\? tidtra,'f~ ldt\r cj*\f<-r'hihq yV^te^ Q/vJ C*rhd r*fJ|Vt>| / Dj4 +Ae UifCotirf i*P ap'p^ls -for #)« fk c trcuttf JGCi c(e 1 h pocjra^f' f tAis^l <j(4'ef-bito /n 4 W&f con-phcff (jj )'fh Uck {/1 pV) c [) Jf / (QQdo') ? C, (j^hi^v j 6-f on UJOulJ-ptJ )f-/W rhik* jjUniy of"rwf'fr) c psimzfo a pej-j-fion Sjack tr a COhfhd t*i'^h*t rt^krf At (>«f<tfc>/e fiocrf ft prO&Jointf ^u(\hj U«s h of Corruf COrti'jfd* fke iffm hj of a C^rfi{ioch dfappzofctl'/Ij'Af' ji]€ p^iiio^rS / Jr^ aront) ' H)l ( f&dirfjtc/ fao-fi pqrfs bf fkis jau)i?<j fb*u/\y hrt pvbfhon fhxkf Q i/^hj c/qf of <* ( ( of Ck C^nfijfuf'lonc/ ^/<ny,^ 7^ f U/ incorrecrf, Sv iU courf o~f apptolr cf rfifico'h ' <2. 1Ae court of 0petals' chyinlfrcj iU pitH^frr app^lohtU ^ ^ttoikd fi$i ktd/c/ h o/iW/Wy $7 g rfc (A /w c£> ah 14 /' r-T xtvUu/s ft rtcorcf ii~ \jji !( s hoa -fit p4fifos>er r< Slack (/, jv\ C fra*,* f &*J tfv* // ir/>oa> -ft p<hiat\ t/l(d pr6c<t c/q^i r<^( £~h out({ (nQ(/e CO% jho hr riffs Uhdir -ftt ahn^dhiJofi^^^' C*ny+d«h»«< 7^e j) tf7~ < °'"ts h oS a ajhf ~h> dutproctfs b^^duy^ h /-T tp*fv Q-fhd W ft Jut proc*yf daafl r>f ahtd^yf pro flfaih* Uhfvtrly or &A lfrar//<j AepnViy q ptrfOo tirp frftr bh<rfj (Or prop^fi^ / P,<t Courfb'f apf)^(y y fi pvhiil'dtiv aatrfi^iccvfi rifffo ^ -p<iir 'Othij 4 U pr* Cour-j O'f -fhe U ^ ft^t{ 14} If y, Xxi.ee pe-fHk/b-foriMnio-f Orf/iArt/ Or>