shift blame to others for them own criminal actions, ie., Dr. Roman ignored petitioner’s culture or subculture — something the DSM-IV-TR requires before a diagnosis of “delusional disorder” can be made; (3) Dr. Conroy, who possesses a great deal of experience dealing with incarcerated criminals, testified in a wholly credible manner that petitioner’s “conspiracy theory” was little more than an attempt by petitioner to rationalize his current predicament; (4) Dr. Bailey, who evaluated petitioner in September, 2010, testified in a wholly credible manner that petitioner never told her about any conspiracy theory but, instead, simply repeated the same complaints about what petitioner perceives to be the unjustness of his conviction under the Texas law of parties that petitioner has b 997)(<HOLDING>). In other words, a CoA is granted or denied on
holding that on appeal from the denial of a  2255 motion appellate review 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 a coa is granted on an issuebyissue basis thereby limiting appellate review to those issues holding that appellate review is limited to the issues specified in the coa holding that appellate review in a habeas ease is limited to the issues specified in the coa