1 (a) Whether counsel's statements are entitled to "double
deference" or a presumption of correctness when such are
premised entirely upon a logical fallacy?
(b') And whether such is debatable amongst jurists of
reason entitling Petitioner to a Certificate of Appealability?

2 Whether it is debatable amongst jurists of reason that
the State Court's denial is entitled to deference when
Petitioner's inability to prove racial makeup of venire
panel was caused by State-created barrier?

Whether counsel's statements are entitled to 'double deference' or a presumption of correctness when such are premised entirely upon a logical fallacy, and whether such is debatable amongst jurists of reason entitling Petitioner to a Certificate of Appealability