Whether, without briefing, a Court of Appeals may substitute the 28 U.S.C. §2255 standard for second or successive' motions by prisoners in custody for the legal standard enunciated by this Court for coram nobis petitions by persons not in custody?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED After being released from custody following a conspiracy conviction, Keith Baranski challenged his conviction by filing a petition for writ of error coram nobis. The petition was based on critical new impeachment evidence suppressed by _ the prosecution, including the offer of a reduced sentence to the sole witness tying Baranski to the alleged conspiracy. After a hearing by the District Court, the Eighth Circuit on appeal did not apply coram nobis standards and Brady/Giglio materiality principles. Instead, without briefing on this issue, it chose to apply the stringent standard for “second or successive” motions by “prisoners in custody” under 28 U.S.C. §2255 to Baranski’s coram nobis petition. 1. Whether, without briefing, a Court of Appeals may substitute the 28 U.S.C. §2255 standard for “second or successive” motions by prisoners in custody for the legal standard enunciated by this Court for coram nobis petitions by persons not in custody? 2. Whether under Brady/Giglio precedents the prosecution may suppress evidence of a sentence reduction offered to the sole witness implicating the defendant, because there was only a “likelihood” of a future sentence reduction as opposed to an absolute “promise” of a reduction? 38. Whether it was error under Brady/Giglio to consider the suppressed evidence regarding the key witness’s credibility in isolation rather than cumulatively?