underlying state and federal proceedings, and specification of appellate issues. Insofar as relevant to this appeal, the district court (1) found a procedural bar to consideration of Hernandez’s claim that the state trial court improperly charged on intent; (2) held that the charge claim was without merit; and (3) held that petitioner’s trial counsel had furnished effective assistance of counsel. The court granted a certificate of appealability on the charge issue and on “the ineffective assistance claim based on a failure to properly object to the instruction on intent.” We are not certain whether the district court intended to grant a certificate of appealability on the procedural bar to considering the merits of the charge claim. See Rhagi v. Artuz, 309 F.3d 103, 105 (2d Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). The district court’s grant of a certificate
recognizing that sanctions are collateral to the merits of the case and may be considered even after the merits are no longer before the district court recognizing that the district court did not reach the merits holding that if the state court addresses both the procedural default and the merits of a federal claim in the alternative a federal court should apply the state procedural bar and decline to reach the merits of the claim holding that claims were procedurally barred through improper exhaustion and remanding for the district court to dismiss on the merits or apply cause and prejudice analysis holding that either the district court or the court of appeals must issue a certificate of appealability on both the merits and the procedural bar before we can consider the merits of a claim that the district court held to be procedurally barred