Zof /}ppeals for He St x/k Ha.s fye. ZCn i Zed Z>fa Ces
ir* po&ed <xn tmproper burden and tcnduiy kturden Some
d&r /i ftc<k ie Q f $ pp€.ai<xj)i fI fy ZCoA *) anda r d ifa. Z Con //' <x XjCnes
■fj,ti> dourZd precedences ujI
do £>i>/a\n o, mcn,/s reuiei<j of kiS dXnsy PfioenZou r
d t re u i i
; Z den / e.d die. ict.sk a COAhen / /
de«ceeut
f MtSCanc/aai) da > m <, fc> Susi d Pro 5 ec « /. h t s a. i n or to cxn
Con Utcf ion S o-f aaQcauaiecZ Po fiery t Cpeciftcai/y Ojken
Zn esses Cc<o~de.Penda.nis) fke only fcoO tncri/ninaiinc^
4U 4kUJI
! pa. Zory ZeeZ/ /non y T&ir tr>c~u te.ee an

Has the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit imposed an improper burden and unduly burdensome Certificate of Appealability (COA) standard that contravenes this Court's precedents when it denied Shalash a COA to obtain a merits review of his constitutional-evidence, prosecutorial-misconduct claims to sustain his convictions of aggravated-robbery