DID THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMIT LEGAL ERROR IN DENYING PETITIONER'S CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY STATING THAT NO JURIST OF REASON WOULD NOT DEBATE THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECISION TO DENY RELIEF UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RULE 60(B)(1) OF THE DISTRICT COURT RULED THAT PETITIONER'S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED, TRIAL COUNSEL WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY INEFFECTIVE, AND ANY PROCEDURAL DEFAULT CAUSED BY PCRA COUNSEL IS EXCUSED UNDER MARTINEZ, BUT DIDN'T PREJUDICE HIM AND MISAPPLIED THE HARMLESS ERROR ANALYSIS?

Did the court of appeals commit legal error in denying petitioner's certificate of appealability by finding that a jurist of reason would not debate the district court's decision to deny relief under Rule 60(b)(1) where the petitioner's Sixth Amendment rights were violated by ineffective trial counsel and the confrontation clause was misapplied?