David E. Jackson, III, Petitioner v. Indiana Parole Board

1. Whether a court of appeals, in denying a certificate of appealability in a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 case dismissed on procedural grounds, may rely solely on the merits formula of § 2253(c)(2) without separately determining whether jurists of reason could debate the correctness of the procedural ruling — the two-step inquiiy required by Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000), and Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003). 2. Whether a federal habeas claim is "fairly presented," and any further state remedy "unavailable," for purposes of exhaustion and procedural default, when the petitioner raised all of his federal grounds through the State's only remaining vehicle — a discretionary successive-post-conviction gateway whose denial the State's highest court will not review.