1. Should the "one fair shot" and procedural due process require the court of appeals to
notify a petitioner that an appeal and briefing schedule is being converted back to a
COA, if an amended CO A could bring forth arguments for granting the COA?

2. If the trial record clearly shows on its face egregious violations of the Fourth and Sixth
Amendments; and cause for procedural default, is there a debatable and substantial
constitutional claim; or is it adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed for a COA
to be granted?

a. During a "knock and talk" criminal investigation when there is no answer at the
first door of "public common use" does it allow police to play "Let's Make a Deal "
by knocking on doors numbers two and three?

b. Whether a "knock and talk," is a physical intrusion; and a Fourth Amendment
violation when access is gained by a pathway that the public would not normally
use?

c. During a criminal investigative "knock and talk", on a single, private, unregulated
commercial building, is it entitled to the same Fourth Amendment protection as a
house and its "curtilage "?

Whether the 'one fair shot' and procedural due process require court of appeals to notify petitioner of appeal and briefing schedule conversion, and whether egregious Fourth and Sixth Amendment violations constitute a substantial constitutional claim warranting a Certificate of Appealability (COA)