Where the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia concluded that reasonable jurists could disagree on the fundamental legal principle at issue in the underlying habeas petition, did that court's denial of a Certificate of Appealability (COA) (and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit's sanctioning thereof through summary affirmance on appeal), ignoring this Court's clear and precedential standard for the issuance of the COA, so far depart from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings with respect to the doctrine of stare decisis and adherence to this Court's rulings precedent as to call for an exercise of this Court's supervisory power under Supreme Court Rule 10(a)?

Where the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia concluded that reasonable jurists could disagree on the fundamental legal principle at issue in the underlying habeas petition, did that court's denial of a Certificate of Appealability (COA) (and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit's sanctioning thereof through summary affirmance on appeal), ignoring this Court's clear and precedential standard for the issuance of the COA, so far depart from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings with respect to the doctrine of stare decisis and adherence to this Court's rulings precedent as to call for an exercise of this Court's supervisory power under Supreme Court Rule 10(a)?