I. Could reasonable jurists disagree with the District Court's rejection of
Petitioner's claim that the State Courts' determination that he forfeited his
right to counsel is not a "decision contrary to, or involving an unreasonable
application of," clearly established federal law under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(d)(1) for want of a decision by this Court addressing the issue of
"forfeiture" as opposed to "waiver" of the right to counsel and, if so, did
the Court of Appeals err in denying a certificate of appealability on
Petitioner's right to counsel claim?

II. Could reasonable jurists disagree with the District Court's finding that a
State appellate court's determination tnat Petitioner's right to counsel was
violated does not make a "substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right" under § 2253 (c)(2) and, if so, did the Court of
Appeals err in determining that Petitioner has failed to make a substantial
showing that his right to counsel was violated by denying a certificate of
appealability on his right to counsel claim?

III. Could reasonable jurists disagree with the District Court's finding that 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (e) and this Court's decision in Cullen v. Pinholster bars
consideration of materials proffered pursuant to Rule 7 of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Case to reconstruct the State court
record and show that the State Courts' factual findings are unreasonable in
light of the evidence presented in the State court proceedings and
incorrect by clear and convincing evidence and, if so, did the Court of
Appeals err in denying a certificate of appealability of this issue?

Could reasonable jurists disagree with the District Court's rejection of Petitionen's claim that the State Courts' determination that he forfeited his right to counsel