Whether a reasonable jurist could debate the applicability of 28 U.S.C. §2254(d) when a state court rejects a claim on procedural grounds

The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, held Petitioner failed to raise a cognizable claim for post-conviction relief under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15 and even if a cognizable claim existed, his argument meritless. The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri held that the state court's disposition of Petitioner's claim was entitled to deference under 28 U.S.C. §2254 (d) and that a reasonable 'jurist would not find it s ruling debatable. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court's application of §2254 (d) to Petitioner's claim and denied a certificate of appealability. This petition presents the following question: Whether a reasonable [jurist could debate whether 28 u.S ’.'C. §2254 (d) is applicable to a case in which the state court rejected the petitioner's claim a procedural ground rather than resolving the merits of the claim. Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449 (2009).was onsee I