In light of these decisions, the Fifth Circuit's denial of Randy Halprin's motion for a COA gives rise to the following questions:

1. Has the Fifth Circuit contravened Buck, Miller-El, and Slack by first deciding that Mr. Halprin's claim under Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982) and Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 (1987), did not suffice to show he is innocent of the death penalty and "thus conclud[ing] that jurists of reason would not debate the district court's determination that Halprin's Enmund/Tison claim is procedurally barred"?

2. Has the Fifth Circuit contravened Buck, Tennard, Miller-El, and Slack by holding Mr. Halprin's claim under Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978), is not debatable because the Fifth Circuit alone has interpreted the Lockett line of cases "to apply to the exclusion of specific types of evidence rather than specific items of evidence"?

3. Has the Fifth Circuit contravened Buck, Tennard, Miller-El, and Slack by holding that only "post-AEDPA precedent" may be considered when deciding whether a state court unreasonably determined the facts under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2), and the issue is not debatable although no other court has reached the same conclusion?

Whether the Fifth Circuit contravened this Court's precedents in Buck, Miller-El, and Slack by first deciding the merits of Mr. Halprin's claims before determining the debatability of the district court's procedural rulings