Did the Court of Appeals err in denying Petitioner's COA claim; whether a reasonable jurist would debate if appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue the party presentation principle after the appellate court affirmed Movant's conviction on grounds never raised or argued by any party and never published by any court without fair notice?

Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that Petitioner's Fifth Amendment right to be heard and due process were violated when the Court of Appeals affirmed Petitioner's conviction by creating new precedent with the warrantless seizure requirement sua sponte without any party presentation or any fair notice