principles set forth by the Supreme Court at the time the state court renders its decision." Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 71-72, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003). 3 . The state argues that the COA limited the issue on appeal to only the question of Tinsley's continuing presence as a bailiff after his testimony and that, therefore, counsel's failure to object to the testimony is outside the COA and should not be addressed by this court. Although it is true that we are limited to the issues presented in the COA, we read the issue specified in the COA as including both the question of Tinsley's contact with the jury following the testimony and the introduction of the testimony itself because the issues are intertwined. Murray v. United States, 145 F.3d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). In the conclusion of his opening brief to
holding that pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed holding to ensure substantial justice to the parties the pleadings must be liberally construed holding that the issues specified in the coa may be construed in light of the pleadings and other parts of the record holding that pleadings under the rico act are to be liberally construed holding that a statute should not be construed so as to invalidate other parts of the same statute