Under 28 U.S.C. §2253 (c)(2), a habeas petitioner can request a circuit justice or judge to grant him or her a certificate of appealability ("COA"), based on a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

During the COA screening process, the circuit justice or judge answers the threshold or primary question of whether the applicant is showing that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurist could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. , 137 S. Ct. 759, 197 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2017)(quoting Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1034, 154 L. Ed. 2d 931 (2003).

In addition, under the same premise of such screening, the circuit justice or judge limits its primary threshold inquiry, as to the merits analysis of each claim, without a full consideration of the factual bases adduced in support of the claims. Id. 137 S. Ct. 759.

Under this syllogism, did the circuit justice for The Eleventh Circuit supplant an ersatz screening COA procedure, not in comport with Supreme Court precedent, when it fully considered the facts and legal bases of Appellant's claims request for a COA, and thus ultimately ruling on the merits of each claim, as denied by the district court?

Whether the circuit justice supplanted the COA screening procedure with a merits analysis