Did the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit err in filing to issue a Certificate of Appealability from the denial of the Petition for writ of habeas Corpus as concerns:

a) the State High Court's Granting of a "Vacation" motion multiple terms out-of-Court where Vacated a Previous Order by a different judge allowing the Petitioner to withdraw his duty pleas on Remand From the Granting Supreme Court while he was represented by Counsel thus divested the Court of jurisdiction and necessarily leading structural defect in the Criminal Procedure VI Ab 1 507 US 816 C1493), there the only 1404 guide of mechanism for such a sue would have been A Petition for Writ of habeas Corpus; and

b) An appointed trial Counsel's complete failure to conduct any file of a Pretrial investigation in a death penalty case where in the Converse, Counsel submitted a "foresta motion without Petitioner's knowledge, maintains in the words of the pretrial hearing clause that not follow "Eavelle" Protocol because the Petitioner explicitly stated on the record that he was withdrawing his duty pleas and did so "Pa-SE" which is contrary to the facts and the law, the Petitioner was represented by Court-appointed

Did the United States Court of Appeals err in failing to issue a Certificate of Appealability from the denial of the Petition for writ of habeas corpus as concerns (a) the State Trial Court's granting of a 'Vacatur' motion multiple times that vacated a previous Order by a different judge allowing the Petitioner to withdraw his guilty pleas on remand from the Georgia Supreme Court while he was represented by Counsel thus divesting the Court of jurisdiction and necessarily creating a structural defect in the criminal proceeding per Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 416 (2013), where the only available mechanism for such a claim would have been a Petition for writ of habeas corpus; and (b) the appointed trial Counsel's complete failure to conduct any pre-trial investigation in a death penalty case where Counsel submitted a 'forfeiture motion' without Petitioner's knowledge, maintains in the motion that the trial court did not follow 'Faretta' protocol because the Petitioner had stated on the record that he was withdrawing his guilty pleas and did so 'pro-se' contrary to the facts and the record where the Petitioner was represented by Court-appointed Counsel