Did the V.S. Coust of Appeals for the Ninth Grcuit err when it denied the certificate of appealibility whereas there were in-set before the istrict court, where a juist of reason would find it debatable whethes the district coust was eorrect in its proceedural ruling, including: erewel and uusual punisbment, freedom from counsel, denial of reasonable bail, dve rignt to effective va poy sub sut 0 po.-- poy Fpords puo 'soord violated, ond were being volated,when the orginal petitin for writ tlabcas corpus was filed, and as amended-and the state court ip until that time had ignored petitioners such that no appeal to the state's appellate court could be made?

2) Did the distrit court err when it dismissed Pettorer's Habeas corpus actior on the basis of the requirement of exhaustion and so the petitiar"not being credible, Whreas 28U.S.C.2z54(BI)allows tendered by Petitioner, have been rendered innefective, whien should cory over inteo 5 2241 4l extraordinery ciraumstances under Younger V. Harris, 401 V.S.37 to address their claims, where Habeas Corpus was not even going

Did the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals err in denying a Certificate of Appealability when the petitioner raised debatable constitutional issues