Wwl £x/er Wt CJ3A CctrViflca^€_
.cf . ciO{)ta\a\jo\\A^ ] uoVxoa TdWr r i cA <d\ud^ȣ_
l&LKeA do or cdejnM o (jOA \a -VW
AoA&me\/d vind^r fed. 12.. H CpA 4V\ad
ctojorw 33d>\o

i). YW ~Xr\cA tooA ~^rV\€.
CjTD)SS i^^_K^\VV\\ Aod:\on £fc3YYV fWfnVl^O A:
OiCjCjo^ler , V'tolcdred 4W vnv\4Yo\nda4v6\n
C\&U<bt tjJdffCLYiV^d Vxl d\\<? f\/w(?ryd'
tv\evd c£ AW_ tWAad Code 's (jd^£ 4 Ao4\<0'fJf >
avid -Ha/_ iourtfeedft AmewdwifiJ'^o

Did the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction over the collateral order doctrine when the district judge failed to issue a COA for the final judgment under Fed. R. App. P. 22(b) that governed the basis for the district court's viewing the CPOE-e examination view filed in the case as a violation of the Confrontation Clause warranted by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution