In the context of a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and a subsequent Application for Certificate of Appealability (COA) under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 Petitioner presents the following two questions:

I. After following Buchheim for over 8 minutes, undercover officers initiated a traffic stop, called for a narcotics canine, and then waited for a computer equipped squad car to issue a speeding citation. Evidence discovered during post conviction proceedings established the officers had the means to issue a manual citation and no delay was necessary, despite what the suppression court found and held as the reason to deny suppression.

Did the district court abuse its discretion when it refused to order an evidentiary hearing on: (1) Was Counsel Constitutionally ineffective for not discovering the readily available facts that one of the stop's officers had been issued a manual citation book and was permitted by policy to issue manual citations? and (2) Whether the traffic stop was impermissibly delayed under Rodriguez v United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015)?

II. This Court has consistently construed AEDPA's COA clause to ensure habeas corpus petitioners, who were denied relief in the district court, have a meaningful opportunity for review. Buchheim's application for COA raised substantial questions of law, novel Rodriguez questions, and factual record conflicts. In a one sentence judgement the Eighth Circuit denied the application in its entirety.

Did the Eighth Circuit fail in its statutory and Constitutional obligation to provide Buchheim with a meaningful review of his habeas denial? Additionally: Does the paucity of the panel's opinion unreasonably interfere with meaningful review of its decision?

Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing on ineffective-assistance-of-counsel and unlawful-traffic-stop claims