WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT RENDERED A DECISION IN CONFLICT WITH THE LAW OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT ANNOUNCED IN COPPEDGE -V- U.S., 369 U.S. 438 (1962); JONES -V- CUNNINGHAM, 371 U.S. 236 (1963); CARAFAS -V- LAVELLEE, 391 U.S. 234 (1968); BAREFOOT -V- ESTELLE, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983); SPENCER -V- KEMNA, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998); BECKER -V- MONTGOMERY, 532 U.S. 757 (2001); JONES -V- BOCK, 549 U.S. 199, 216 (2007), AND WAS CONTRARY TO 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2253(c) WHEN IT DENIED MY REQUEST FOR A COA FROM THE DISTRICT COURT'S ERRONEOUS DENIAL OF MY 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254(a) PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BASED SOLELY ON PROCEDURAL GROUNDS AND CONTRARY TO JONES -V- BOCK, SUPRA?

WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT RENDERED A DECISION IN CONFLICT WITH THE LAW OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT ANNOUNCED IN JONES -V- BOCK, 549 U.S. 199, 216 (2007); BECKER -V- MONTGOMERY, 532 U.S. 757, 767-68 (2001)(SAME) AND WAS CONTRARY TO 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(b)(4) WHEN IT ERRONEOUSLY DENIED ME LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS TO APPEAL THE DISTRICT COURTS ERRONEOUS DISMISSAL W/OUT PREJUDICE MY 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BASED SOLELY ON JURISDICTIONAL GROUNDS CONTRARY TO 28 U.S.C. Sections 2254(a); 2241(d); 1915(b)(4); JONES -V- CUNNINGHAM, SUPRA, Id. (1963); SPENCER -V- KEMNA, SUPRA, Id. (1998) AND JONES -V- BOCK, SUPRA, Id. (2007)(FACTUALLY THE SAME)?

Whether the court of appeals for the eleventh circuit rendered a decision in conflict with the law of the U.S. Supreme Court