Whether the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals erred in failing to find a violation of the petitioner's due process rights when the district court denied his motion to amend his habeas petition without providing fair notice and an opportunity to respond, and whether the Eighth Circuit erred in finding that the district court properly allowed a magistrate judge to accept the petitioner's guilty plea in a felony case in violation of the Federal Magistrates Act

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW : . I.) PURSUANT TO USCS RULE 10(a) AND (c), HAS THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT : COURT OF APPEALS ENTERED A DECISION WHICH CONFLICTS WITH THIS COURT'S DECISION IN DAY v. MCDONOUGH, 547 U.S. 198, 210, | 126 S.Ct. “1675, 164 L.Ed. 2d 376 (2006) AS WELL AS THE DECISION — : : OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN | : HUDSON v. HARDY, 412 F.2d 1091 (DC 1968), WHEN IT FAILED TO FIND THAT APPELLEE'S RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED BY DENYING HIM | FAIR NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE DISTRICT | COURT'S DENIAL OF HIS MOTION TO AMEND HIS HABEAS PETITION : ON THE BASIS THAT THE MOTION WAS PROCEDURALLY FLAWED. | Il.) PURSUANT TO USCS RULE 10(a), HAS THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURT | OF APPEALS ENTERED A DECISION WHICH CONFLICTS WITH THE HOLDING OF THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN | UNITED STATES v. HARDEN, 758 F.3d 886, 888-91 (7th Cir. 2014) : AS WELL AS THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING IN UNITED STATES v. DAVILA-RUIZ, 790 F.3d 246, 252-53 (1st Cir. 2015) WHEN IT FOUND THAT THE DISTRICT COURT GAVE ITS CONSENT FOR A MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO ACCEPT THE APPELLEE'S PLEA IN A FELONY CASE IN DISREGARD FOR THE LANGUAGE OF THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES ACT (28 USC § 636). . : -i