1. ) Whether jurists of reason would find it debatable that a Certificate
of Appealability ("COA") should have been issued under Slack v. McDaniel ,
529 U.S. 473 (2000), after the District Court dismissed Calligan's Sixth
and Fourteenth Amendment §§455(b) Disqualification of a Judge's claim
on procedural grounds, without holding an evidentiary hearing or reaching
the merits of that underlying constitutional claim and whether jurists
of reason would find it debatable whether the District Court was correct
in its procedural ruling that, the claim could be waived where clearly
established federal law states that a §§455(b) issue cannot be waived.

2. ) Whether jurists of reason would find it debatable that a COA should
have been issued under Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473 (2000), after
the District Court dismissed Calligan's Sixth Amendment, ineffective
assistance of counsel claim on procedural grounds ["untimely "], where
jurists of reason would find it debatable that (1) the District Court's
assessment of the constitutional claim was debatable or wrong; and (2)
the District Court was correct in its procedural ruling when Calligan's
§§2255 motion was filed within one year of the denial of his timely
petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Whether jurists of reason would find it debatable that a Certificate of Appealability (COA) should have been issued under Slack v. McDaniel after the District Court dismissed constitutional claims on procedural grounds