Did the Fifth Circuit abuse its discretion in denying Crider's Certificate of Appealability (COA) by misunderstanding his constitutional claims and applying an erroneous theory of law?

(BOLD) Question # 1: When Crider showed the district court that his 1990 convictions were not defined as authorized elements of the instant offense within the true meaning of Acts 2005. 79th Leg.. Ch. 996. Secs. 3: 4. eff. 90 -2005. but that it was only by ex post facto application of the 2005 law to CONTROL THE USE of his 1990 convictions that the trial court claimed felony jurisdiction: and when Crider demonstrated to the Fifth Circuit that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong because EVERY case-law the district court applied to excuse the State's constitutional violations was error or abuse due to its misunderstanding of law; but the Fifth Circuit then necessarily evaluated Crider's petition under an erroneous theory of law because it misunderstood what Crider's claim was and failed to liberally construe his pleadings, did the Fifth Circuit abuse its discretion in denying Crider COA? (BOLD) Question # 2When jurisdiction of the subject matter exists solely by reason of the authority vested in the court by the constitution and statutes and Acts 2005, 79th Leg.. Ch. 996. Secs. 3 and 4 conferred authority on the trial court to act only in some situations but did not confer authority to act when the statute's requirements were not satisfied, but the trial court issued a judgment of felony conviction under the statute when its requirements were not satisfied, was the trial court's felony jurisdiction only a product of the ex post facto application of the 2005 law, meaning Crider is actually innocent of both felony DW1 and habitual criminal enhancement, and did the Fifth Circuit consider his claim under the wrong theory of law when i t denied him COA on a misunderstanding of his claim? III.