QUESTION I:
Whether reasonable jurists might debate the following three questions:
- In light of Alleyne v. United States., 135 S. Ct. and Apprendi v. New Jersy, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000), does the "knowing and intentionally" mens rea contained in 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) apply to the offense elements of drug type and quantity found in 21 u.S.C. § 841(b)? Does a constructive amendment alleviate that burden? Do jury instructions that leave out the definition of what constitutes a marijuana plant for sentencing under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) lessen the burden of proof required by Alleyne v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000) in violation of the Sixth Amendment. Does the refusal by counsel in trial,, or on direct appeal, to argue a defense based on the defendant's proffered defense objectives relative to Supreme Court substantive decisions constitute a Sixth Amendment violation of a Defendant's autonomy rights?

QUESTION II:
Whether the trial court and Eighth Circuit should consider McCoy applicability in the first instance, and whether reasonable jurists could debate over its applicability?

Whether reasonable jurists might debate the application of Alleyne and Apprendi to mens rea and constructive amendment