Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): proceeding, an appellant must first obtain a COA. Jackson v. Crosby, 437 F.3d 1290, 1294-95 (11th Cir.2006). The court that issues a COA must “indicate which specific issue or issues,” if any, warrant a COA. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). Appellate review is then limited to the issues specified in the COA. Murray v. United States, 145 F.3d 1249, 1250-51 (11th Cir.1998). Here, however, the dis trict court failed to specify which issues or issues warranted a COA. Because the court failed to specify the issue or issues for which it granted a COA, we may do one of two things: (1) remand to the district court for enumeration of issues; or (2) retain jurisdiction and rule on those issues raised by the prisoner that we deem worthy of a COA. See Putman v. Head, 268 F.3d 1223, 1227-28 (11th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Moore v. Campbell, 344 F.3d 1313, 1315 n. 1 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the district courts failure to enumerate specific issues for review in a coa does not deprive us of appellate jurisdiction (B) holding the scope of appellate review of denial of a habeas petition limited to the issues on which coa has been granted (C) holding that on appeal from the denial of a  2255 motion appellate review is limited to the issues specified in the coa (D) holding that appellate review is limited to the issues specified in the coa (E) holding that appellate review in a habeas ease is limited to the issues specified in the coa
Output (English): holding that on appeal from the denial of a  2255 motion appellate review is limited to the issues specified in the coa