WHETHER:
FROM REACHING THE SHOWIING NECESSARY TO OBTAIN THE REGULAR APPEAL PROCESS, SIMPLY BECAUSE:
(A). Where a Habeas Petitioners predicates, merits, Evidence and Factuel development of their
Canstitutional Claic Submitted For 28u.s.cSdass Belief have never been miade Part of the.
Record and Essentially Suppressed From view it is Impassible For him tomake the Straightforward
"Substantial Showing Of The Denial of a ConstitutionalRight" Codified within 28uscsaa 53 (). BuTSE
SLACK vMCDANIEL Sa9 us 473 atY8y (Clarifying the COA"Standard under $aas3ce) For habeas Petitioners
denied on Procedural grounds without the court reaching the undertying constitutional claim).
(B). During the last Decade (ioyears) the Eleventh Circuit Court ofAppeals, over threehuadred and
Forty three (343) Times, to include towards the instant Mandamus Petitionerhas alleged that SLAck
Sagusatu78 States
"…
must show that reasonable jurists 'would find
To merit a certificale of appealability.petitioners
debatable both (1) the merits of an uinderlying claim, and (2) the procedural issues that he seeks
to raise. See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2): Slack v. McDaniel. 529.U:S. 473. 478, 120 S. Ct. 1595,
1600-01, 146 L. Ed. 2d 542 (2000). See APpENDIX"E"
When ClEarly SLACK SAUSaTY78 hAS NO MENTiON UPON" THE MERETS OFAN UNDERLYING CLAIM:

Whether the United States and a pattern of utilizing an erroneous certificate of appealability is the only appropriate remedy, where petitioners have never had the benefit of a merits review by any court due to an incorrect procedure