Whether the lower courts incorrectly found petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus failed to demonstrate a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right?

II.
Whether the Federal District Court resolved petitioner's claim's in a manner that was blatantly contrary too or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal Law as set forth by this Honorable Court in Miranda v. Arizona and Strickland v. Washington a violation of the petitioner's equal protection and due process rights pursuant to the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments, which, in effect, denied him due process and equal protection of the law to have a fair adjudication of his claims in Federal Court?

III.
Whether* the District Court lost jurisdiction and erroneously determined that petitioner was untimely and made no Rulings on the merits of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition? The COA determination under § 2253© requires an overview of the claims in the habeas petition and a general assessment of the merits. The threshold inquiry does not require full consideration of the factual basis or legal basis adduced in support of the claims. In fact, the statute forbids it. When a court of appeals side steps this process by first deciding the merits of the appeal, and then justifying its denial of COA based on its adjudication of the actual merits, it is in essence deciding an appeal without jurisdiction.

Whether the lower courts incorrectly found petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus failed to demonstrate a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right?