This case presents an important question regarding an individual's entitlement to a certificate of appealability. Regarding that entitlement, this Court has held that:

Consistent with our prior precedent and the text of the habeas corpus statute, we reiterate that a prisoner seeking a COA need only demonstrate "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). Circuit judges, however, including in this case, have denied requests for such certificates even when the procedural history of such cases evidences the requisite "debatability." This petition seeks review of the following question to clarify the standard for certificates of appealability or, alternatively, an order granting a certificate of appealability so Smith may appeal the denial of his substantial Strickland v. Washington claim to the Seventh Circuit:

Did the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit err in denying Smith's application to appeal the denial of his Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel claim when the procedural history of the claim itself evidences debate over key, determinative, issues underpinning Smith's claim amongst the reasonable jurists who have considered it?

Did the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit err in denying Smith's application to appeal the denial of his Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel claim when the procedural history of the claim itself evidences debate over key, determinative, issues underpinning Smith's claim amongst the reasonable jurists who have considered it?