Small more than a year after the trial of this case. II. In accordance with our COA, Parker broadly contends that his trial attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to object to the standard jury instruction on aggravated battery or to request a modified instruction that explicitly required the State to prove that the victim was pregnant at the time of the offense. However, he devotes the bulk of his counseled brief to arguing that the trial court’s jury instruction, by omitting an essential element of the offense, violated his due process right to a fair trial. That due process claim is not properly before us because it was not raised in Parker’s § 2254 petition and is outside the scope of the COA. See Murray v. United States, 145 F.3d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Although the due process claim that Parker
holding that on appeal from the denial of a  2255 motion appellate review is limited to the issues specified in the coa holding a coa is granted on an issuebyissue basis thereby limiting appellate review to those issues holding that appellate review in a habeas ease is limited to the issues specified in the coa holding the scope of appellate review of denial of a habeas petition limited to the issues on which coa has been granted holding that the district courts failure to enumerate specific issues for review in a coa does not deprive us of appellate jurisdiction