Whether jurists of reason would find it debatable that a Certificate of Appealability (COA) should have been issued under Slack v. McDaniel after the District Court dismissed constitutional claims on procedural grounds

1. ) Whether jurists of reason would find it debatable that a Certificate of Appealability ("COA") should have been issued under Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473 (2000), after the District Court dismissed Calligan's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment §§455(b) Disqualification of a Judge's claim on procedural grounds, without holding an evidentiary hearing or reaching the merits of that underlying constitutional claim and whether jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the District Court was correct in its procedural ruling that, the claim could be waived where clearly established federal law states that a §§455(b) issue cannot be waived. 2. ) Whether jurists of reason would find it debatable that a COA should have been issued under Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473 (2000), after the District Court dismissed Calligan's Sixth Amendment, ineffective assistance of counsel claim on procedural grounds ["untimely ”], where jurists of reason would find it debatable that (1) the District Court's assessment of the constitutional claim was debatable or wrong; and (2) the District Court was correct in its procedural ruling when Calligan's §§2255 motion was filed within one year of the denial of his timely petition for Writ of Certiorari.-i