Whether the court of appeals side-stepped the requirements of a Certificate of Appealability under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 2253(c)(2) when the court of appeals required the Petitioner to show that the district court abused its discretion in denying the Petitioner's Motion pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that resulted in a decision based on the merits of the appeal when the issue before the court of appeals was only whether the district court's decision was debatable?

The court of appeals should have issued a Certificate of Appealability because reasonable jurist could debate the district court's conclusion that the Petitioner was not deprived of his constitutional right to a unanimous jury verdict because a criminal defendant has always had a constitutional right to a unanimous jury verdict under the 6TH Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Whether SuMotidn filed by a habeas corpus petitioner under the provisions of Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is to be considered not filed in a reasonable time when there is no evidence that the opposing party has "been prejudiced or harm by the purported delay in the filing of the motion?

The court of appeals .should have issued a Certificate of Appealability:/because reasonable jurist could dbated the district court's conclusion that the Petitioner's motion pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was not made w:.i; within a reasonable time when the district court's determination was not based on any guiding rules or principles; and the Patrt i. > Petitioner was not provided with the opportunity to show good^.cause to excuse the ienght of delay as to deprive the Petitioner of his constitutional rights to Due Process under the 14TH Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Whether the court of appeals side-stepped the requirements of a Certificate of Appealability