(1) Does a certificate of appealability ("COA") debatability review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2) mean that the COA panel may deny debatability of a constitutional claim, or of any of its dispositive parts exists, where the panel for and in such a review ignores valid showings the petitioner made on the facts, on the law, and on mixed questions; merely repeats the likewise one-sided 28 U.S.C. §2254(d) - suitable-only conclusions by the district court on the same; and conflates "reasonable jurists would not disagree,» «...could not disagree," and "...would not debate" standards with a "...could debate" or "...could disagree" standard, and still be said to be following the framework approach mandate of Buck v. Davis, 137 S.Ct. 759, 774, that a COA panel should "...[A]sk only if the ... decision was debatable"?

(2) Did Cody do any or all of the above, deciding implicitly the important federal question of what §2253(c)(2) means, in a way or ways which conflict with the framework approach mandate of Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) and Buck or related relevant decisions of this Court?

(3) Is Cody's decision illustrative of continuing post-Buck decisions of other U.S. circuit court COA panel decisions on debatability in conflict with Miller-El and Buck or related relevant decisions of this Court?

(4) Does Cody conflict with decisions of other courts of appeal COA decisions not in conflict with Miller-El and Buck on the same matter?

(5) Do other circuit court COA panel decisions conflict with each other, intra-circuit or inter-circuit, on the same matter?

(6) Did Cody's denial order (App. A, *8 -*10) decide the important federal question of what the 10th Amendment, or U.S. Supreme Court rulings motivated in whole or in part thereby, mean, as to when, or even if, a federal court can pronounce a statement on what a state rule holds (instantly, on a judicially created res judicata claim preclusion procedural bar), without citation to a relevant or applicable state statute or rule of court, and without clear and firmly established approval by the state supreme court, by pronouncing such a statement (App. A, *9, *17), in conflict with the relevant decisions of this Court in Johnson v. Lee, 578 U.S. 605, 136 S. Ct. at 1804-05 (2016) and Walker v. Martin, 562 U.S. 307,316,317 (2011)?

(7) Did Cody's denial order (App. A, *18) decide the important federal law question of what the 6th Amendment right to access counsel of choice means by ruling (App. A, *18) petitioner did not have a meritorious claim of the right because his "indigency" barred such access, in conflict with the concept of "indigency" referenced in Caplin & Drysdale v. U.S., 491 U.S. 617 (1989)?

Whether a certificate of appealability (COA) debatability review under 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2) allows a circuit court to deny debatability of a constitutional claim by ignoring valid showings, repeating the district court's one-sided conclusions, and conflating standards