merits. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). “A COA will issue only if the requirements of [28 U.S.C.] § 2253 have been satisfied.... [Section] 2253(c) permits the issuance of a COA only where a petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 336 (quotation omitted). To make this showing, petitioner must demonstrate that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000) (quotation omitted). Accordingly, “[w]e l 1, 130 L.Ed.2d 808 (1995) (<HOLDING>). In his pro se brief before this court,
holding that federal court cannot review claim procedurally defaulted in state court absent showing of either cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice holding that issues raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered absent exceptional circumstances of plain error or fundamental miscarriage of justice holding that fundamental miscarriage of justice standard requires petitioner to make threshold showing of actual innocence holding that the carrier probably resulted standard governs the miscarriage of justice inquiry when a petitioner who has been sentenced to death raises a claim of actual innocence to avoid a procedural bar to the consideration of the merits of his constitutional claim holding that courts may only review claims for fundamental miscarriage of justice