1) Dio-me
coiviTiTaT| 0NjA| An1cj
SHoujcJ
debATE that pOfSOAMT
6o3.^i A KidEIGHTH c\rco\T demV thepET\T\ofNicr /\
Err uh^THE peTiiioiOcr
OKi A COA 714AT^EAS o/nJaUE JuC\st Coo id
TO 6ofic)EM . 141 S.cT
^ V6, FfiAZ-i^r^
H,6 CoMVI^T i'onJ FoA ioSTt'M IdATioiJ LO,TH A
WEAp3(J .Vi ViolATIoiJ OF XoiOA Code18 IT -
DAMgEfou^>
QuoHFy AS A VIoIemT F^y'; UNScjEr7TlE
U,b-C- ^ cfiM(E) (heed) AMd He U)AS AoToaIIV
^oCEsST o F AM ARrt^ OW o FFE^ SEWfeMCE 7UMiTEP VTflTKV
Mot

Whether the Eighth Circuit erred in denying the petitioner a certificate of appealability when the petitioner showed that reasonable jurists could debate whether, pursuant to Borden v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1817 (2021) and United States v. Frazier, 948 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2020), his convictions for intimidation with a dangerous weapon in violation of Iowa Code § 708.6 did not qualify as a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act, and he was actually innocent of an armed career offender sentence