Was the decision of the Ninth Circuit to deny a Certificate of Appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) under the standards set forth in Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) and Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) unreasonable because 1) the defendant made a substantial showing that he was denied his constitutional right to a fair trial under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and 2) the Federal District Judge incorrectly ruled that the state court's decision allowing details of the prior sex offense into evidence was not contrary to or did not involve an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

Was the decision of the Ninth Circuit to deny a Certificate of Appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) under the standards set forth in Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) and Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) unreasonable because 1) the defendant made a substantial showing that he was denied his constitutional right to a fair trial under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and 2) the Federal District Judge incorrectly ruled that the state court's decision allowing details of the prior sex offense into evidence was not contrary to or did not involve an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent under 28 U.S.C. § 2254