Whether the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals erred by
"We also find no abuse of discretion in entering the decision
the admission, with a limiting instruction, of testimony that
officers observed Carter involved in what appeared to be hand-to-
hand drug transactions on multiple days shortly before they dated
and executed their search warrant, because the uncharged conduct
was "inextricably intertwined" with the charged offenses. See
O'Dell, 204 F.3d 829, 833 (8th Cir. 2000)
conflict with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision,
"Defendant's rights under U.S. Const. Amend. Vi's Confrontation
Clause were violated when a law enforcement agent testified that
he knew defendant had received a large amount of methamphetamine
based on what he was told by a confidential informant, and the
testimony about his conversation with the confidential informant
pointed directly at defendant and his guilt in the crime charged:
[2]-The error was not invited or harmless, because the defense
simply pointed out an inconsistency between the agent's testimony
that he did not observe a drug transaction, and his assertion
that he knew defendant had received the drugs and the
inadmissible evidence was highly incriminating.in United States v.

"[W]hether the Eighth Circuit erred in rejecting the Supreme
Court's Napue violation test and instead creating a per se rule
that because the report was available to Movant's counsel at
trial, Movant's claim that counsel should have requested fails.
Likewise, his reliance on the contents of the report in support of
his chain-of-custody argument is fatal to his claim that counsel
should have objected to its admission.

Whether the Eighth Circuit erred in rejecting the Supreme
Court's Strickland test and instead creating a per se rule.

Whether the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals erred