I. Did the Seventh Circuit err under Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336–38
(2003) and Buck v. Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773–74 (2017), when it determined
Petitioner had not made a "substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional
right" and denied a certificate of appealability after the district court—and the
Indiana state courts, before it—applied to Petitioner's sentencing claim a
standard higher than that constitutionally required by Townsend v. Burke , 334
U.S. 736 (1948) and United States v. Tucker , 404 U.S. 443 (1972)?

II. Similarly, did the Seventh Circuit err when it failed to issue a certificate of
appealability with respect to Petitioner's Sixth Amendment claim that his
lawyer had been ineffective for failing to investigate the circumstances of
Petitioner's arrest for another crime—an arrest that was later expunged,
because a state court necessarily found Petitioner had nothing to do with
whatever lead to that arrest, but was used nonetheless as the principal
aggravating factor justifying Petitioner's effective life sentence of 90 years.

III. Should a certificate of appealability issue as a matter of course when a district
court relies on incorrect standards to analyze a claim, because its resolution of
the claim will then always be debatable; to conclude otherwise, a circuit court
of appeals would either have to apply the wrong standards, itself, or it would
have to address the claim on its merits, which 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) "forbids"?
Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336–37 (2003); accord Buck v. Davis , 137 S.
Ct. 759, 773 (2017))?

Did the Seventh Circuit err under Miller-El v. Cockrell and Buck v. Davis when it determined Petitioner had not made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right and denied a certificate of appealability