In the Uis Court 9 F appeals For the YW circuth ecide an ih pockant fed eral question in q way that contlids with Slack me Danie (2000)

Fn Slack v. MeDaniefifa petition that stafes a denial of a constitutional right and Jucits of reagen would Find if de bat able that the pr vced arof ruling Was hot correct cons tified the , cy Certifrcate oF appeclability wi 4 c finan D Hl catirfied foph packs of this Jaw by Showing 1! petition sfates @ Valid claim of 4 denial bf a cons filu Fiona! right ond by Shows ry the proce ducal ruling W ay Incorrect, so the court of Ofptals Should have issued the ce rtiticate.

read that hedid not Satisty Slack Vs Mcpanie/, Juhen His Court revieus fhe record it will show that te petitive er Sa fs Ged Slack Vi hal Danie [ and twill show traf Pe petfroes petifvin Showreel the petition got denied 4 hearing fo enfows is rights urd tp the Sth amendrent of fhe US: Const tu tiene sr aa has a might Fr due process becaus? he is depeived oo bet Sh >i and the due proeest clause of The sth alt m wif pro bibs ne goorcrmert finn unfeurly oF art ACarty Aepr'ving 4 hy 4. €, Hote jer property / did fae Courfy a ppeald eny the peritione acertificate and fhe right fe qa fair hearing

Whether the court of appeals erred in denying a certificate of appealability when the petitioner's claim meets the Slack v. McDaniel standard for a constitutional rights violation