1. Should a certificate of appealability have issued where the
District Court incorrectly opined that claims raised by
Mr. Thomas were matters of state law, overlooking that the
preserved issues were argued and well-grounded under federal
constitutional law?

2. Should a certificate of appealability have issued where the
District Court incorrectly opined Mr. Thomas' perjury claim
was procedurally defaulted, ignoring that state post-conviction
appellate counsel inappropriately withdrew on state appeal,
thereby stifling Mr. Thomas' continued attempts to have his
claim considered in one complete round of state appellate
review?

3. Are the integrity of the habeas proceedings compromised
requiring remand back to the District Court where the court
ruled on Mr. Thomas' petition without allowing him to respond
to the State's answer, where Mr. Thomas never refused or failed
to respond, but rather asked for help in responding, citing the
difficulty in understanding the complex procedural doctrines
made by attorneys who had significant advantage over him?

Should a certificate of appealability have issued?