Did the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals abuse its discretion when determining whether Certificate of Appealability should have been issued regarding the following:

Whether, the District Court is barred from considering an ineffective assistance of counsel claim as cause for the procedural default of another claim when the ineffective asistance claim has: itself been procedurally defaulted As discussed under the Edwards v. Carpenter rule of law.

Whether the District Court even considered the impediment(s) as cause and prejudice, with 3-levels of impediments,to toll the AEDPA statute.-of limitations period prior to dismissing the petition on the basis that it was time-barred.

Whether the District Court even considered the inadequate and ineffective State court process as cause and prejudice, with extraordinary, exceptional, and/or special circumstances prior to dismissing the petition on the basis that it was time-barred.

Whether the District Court correctly determined that the petitioner had failed to make a sufficiant showing of innocence under manifest injustice to merit further proceedings on that issue before the District Court as discussed under the Schiup V. Delo, and Murray v. Carrier rules of law.

Whether the District Court even considered the fundamental defects, singular and/or cumulative, under manifest injustice to merit further proceedings as discussed under the Coleman V. Thompson rule of law.

Whether the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals abused its discretion in denying a Certificate of Appealability