Whether the Eighth Circuit erred – contrary to the holdings of the Second, Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeals, which hold that a district court record must provide sufficient explanation of its decision to permit meaningful appellate review and maintain public confidence in sentencing – in holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in summarily denying, without a hearing and with no explanation or discussion, Petitioner Norris's pro se motion to terminate and/or to modify the conditions of his supervised release.

Whether the district court erred in revoking Petitioner's supervised release based solely on his admission to accessing the internet without permission, without any finding of a substantive violation of the conditions of his supervised release