Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not issuing a certificate of appealability by not reviewing the District Court's decisions regarding special interrogatories, venue, evidentiary rulings, and indictment sufficiency

PRESENTED Question i D,d H\e Court' of Appeals -err in not issuing. a certificate cP appeal a bill ly Iyy not reviewing District Court's decision to not Speda\ interrogatories after gui lty verdict for issue Qjn atause of discretion and /of reversible error; in <x cki(d exploitation enterprise C^t) rase wkere gui/!s general vtrdid did not express <xf\ndin^c£ fke spcial unanimily fap'remerit and where 3 predicate off serving statute were not coowdeol upon separately in order fe permit ewes unanimity'? i defence of QUESTioM £ Did the Court oF Appeals err in not issuing acert'ficate op appealability by not revie«uin^ District Courts ruling regarding other acls evidence (br an abuse oF discretion, when if admitted uncharged evidence toiUout' viewing it and without conducting a @u(e 403 analysis to assess its relevance and probotm va\ve.jto determine if cuy sobdanteal p^udtoe vvas present ? -Did it fvitke by not reviewing District Courts decision b rmore err ^andard ? not issue jva Sponte a limiting instruction, under tlie plainerror QU&frioM 3 Km if ruled ftaf ^cvesnm&it $off-\6.ed\y proves Did tW j)istod' Coo ft venue t'n an err w -consplnator's tesficvicny' en Ike dand, online conspiracy case wken tt s,de(y relies on a co wrHwvf presehfing <3ny cef to Wa ling c^Vne Forensic evidence regarding access fo online. Conspiracy or overf ack Oafwnifl&d vuv'Hvn proper disfricf? QUESTiOKl 4 Did fke jXsfr'cf Coott if ruled tnat an ino(icWenf iMiik a CEE cKarge i'5 err w Failed enierpn'se and/or wikoaf .staling fivaf if CS line/ in.(/olving 5. differe«vf commerce,and containing image types? And does, if Safsf/ Eo-da/ wind cm; Wen filed on 3>t day?SuffWenf vwiHicvf spetityinQ name, o an various QUESTION 5 Did ike Dish'dr (ooft err ih denying evictenfcvy Wirings For claims oF fl) statements/ fon m u/'oWfc» of Miranda > (2.) inadmissible. u\fbrmafon obtained during a custodial inkerrT stakfoenk of ^operator, whose 4encfs maffriaj vuas not shown fo J)gfe\danf; (?) paxsecptbri a l fecprfse vicft rn .rtatanenfs and. taincatad lelfers . misconduct u/ken pf&euhch used hon-'en