Whether reasonable jurists might debate the application of Alleyne and Apprendi to mens rea and constructive amendment

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW : In this case disposed of by jury trial as in many drug cases under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), the court constructively amended the indictment, changing it from indicted charges of 21 U.S.C. §§ . 841(A) (1), 841(b)(1)(B) and 846 to 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A) and 846 through the jury charge and sentencing committing structural error. In McCoy v. Louisiana, 584 U.S. _.(2018), decided after Meeks had filed his appeal requesting COA, the Court recognized Meeks autonomy under the Sixth Amendment. Here Meeks, because of the denial of his applicaion for COA has not been allowed to present his McCoy issues to the Eighth Circuit, and requests remand to do so. This Court has held in Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 120 : S. Ct. 1595, 146 L. Ed. 2d 542 (2000) that before we grant a certificate of appealability, the habeas petitioner "must : demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." ; Meeks may make a _ substantial showing as required by 18 . U.S.C. § 2553(c)(2) by showing "... that reasonable jurists could debate, or even agree, that the petition should have been resolved’ in a different manner or that issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." See, , Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 154 L. Ed. 2d 931 (2003). idi QUESTION I: Whether reasonable jurists might debate the following three questions: A: In light of Alleyne v. United States, 135 S. Ct. and Apprendi v. New Jersy, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000), does the "knowing and intentionally" mens rea contained in 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) apply to the offense elements of drug type and quantity found in 21 u.S.C. § 841(b)? Does a constructive amendment alleviate that burden? | B: Do jury instructions that leave out the definition of what constitutes a marijuana plant for sentencing under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) lessen the burden of proof required by Alleyne v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000) in violation of the Sixth Amendment. C: Does the refusal by counsel in trial, or on direct appeal, to argue a defense based on the defendant's : ; proffered defense objectives relative to Supreme Court : substantive decisions constitute a Sixth Amendment violation of a Defendant's autonomy rights? QUESTION II: . _Whether the trial court and Eighth Circuit should consider McCoy applicability in the first instance, and whether reasonable jurists could debate over its applicability? : iv