It is undisputed that the appel late brief filed by Mr. Assad's attor ney on direct appeal was so procedur ally deficit as to preclude consideration of the merits of any issues and his convictions were summarily affirmed. Mr. Assad noted that under similar circum stance s where a criminal defend ant had been denied a direct appeal because of the deficiencies of th e brief, a panel Eighth Circuit had affirmed the grant of a new direct appeal by the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had granted a new direct appeal applying the standard set forth in United States v. Cronic , 466 U.S. 648, 104 S.Ct. 2039 (1984). Mr. Assad's case raises two important issues :

1. D id the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit apply an in correct stan dard by denying a Certificate of Appealability regard ing the threshold no "reasonable jurist" inquiry contrary to this Court's precedents Buck v. Davis , 580 U.S. ___, 137 S.Ct. 759 (2017) and Miller -El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029 (2003) when there was on -point author ity from a prior decision by the Eighth Circuit and recent decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court?

2. Does the Sixth Amend ment made appli cable to the states by the Fourteenth Amend ment s' require that prejudice be presume d under United States v. Cronic , 466 U.S. 648, 104 S.Ct. 2039 (1984) when counsel entirely fails to subject the pros ecution's case to meaningful adversarial testing on direct appeal by only raising an issue that had not been preserved for appeal at the time of tria l?

Did the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit apply an incorrect standard by denying a Certificate of Appealability