succeed to be entitled to a COA, he must “prove something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith.” Id. Having undertaken a rigorous review of Sherratt’s application for a COA and appellate filings, the district court’s order, and the entire record before this court pursuant to the framework set out by the Supreme Court in Miller-El, this court concludes Sherratt is not entitled to a COA. The district court’s resolution of Sherratt’s petition is not reasonably subject to debate and the issues Sherratt seeks to raise on appeal are not adequate to deserve further proceedings. Accord ingly, this court DENIES Sherratt’s request for a COA, DENIES his request for in forma pauperis, and DISMISSES this appeal. 1 . It must be noted that the exact nature of 003) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, Sherratt must obtain a COA to
holding that the aedpa oneyear statute of limitations applies to amendments to  2255 motions holding that state prisoners must obtain a coa to appeal denials of 28 usc  2241 petitions holding statute of limitations period defined in 28 usc  2244d is subject to equitable tolling holding that in california the oneyear statute applies to a  1983 action holding that the oneyear statute of limitations set out in 28 usc  2244d applies to  2241 petitions