1. When a state Supreme Court requires a specific material fact and element to
be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to sustain a criminal conviction,
does a federal appellate court erroneously deny a Certificate of Appealability
when the district court in the same case confirms the state 's failure to prove
that specific and required element?

2. Did the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit wrongfully deny
Petitioner a Certificate of Appealability on his Sufficiency of the Evidence
claim, thereby denying him his right to properly appeal the denial of his
constitutional right to conviction upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of
every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged, consistent with United
States Supreme Court precedent, when the district court confirmed the state 's
failure to prove the specific and required element to sustain a conviction as
required under state law and when the same Court of Appeals concluded in
prior cases that the state was required to prove that specific element beyond a
reasonable doubt?

Whether the lower court erred in its application of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause