Whether the Eighth Circuit's standard for agency records pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) conflicts with the D.C. Circuit's standard

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Eighth Circuit’s standard for agency records pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. §552 e¢ seg., that an agency must maintain agency records conflicts with the ; District of Columbia (D.C.) Circuit’s constructive : control standard. 2. Whether the Eighth Circuit's standard of limited de novo review for responsive records withheld pursuant to FOIA exemption 3 conflicts with the Ninth Circuit’s standard of de novo review. 3. Whether the Eighth Circuit’s standard for adequacy of the search conflicts with the D.C. Circuit’s standard. . 4. Whether the Eighth Circuit erred in affirming an interpretive rule requiring 15 records aggregated to the county level is reasonable and entitled to deference. 5. Whether the Eighth Circuit erred in affirming the FOIA request is asking for the creation of new records. ; ; 6. Whether the Eighth Circuit erred in affirming the authority of Section 1619 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 has not expired. 7. Whether the Eighth Circuit erred in affirming the District Court’s Order providing Risk Management Agency’s (RMA’s) Answer to the Complaint for United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). i il QUESTIONS PRESENTED Continued 8. Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment is violated due to the subjugation of self-representation to assistance of independent counsel as held in Kay v. Ehrler, 499 US. 482 (1991). 9. Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment is violated due to unequal protection : of natural persons due to an artificial person possessing a right that cannot be held by a natural person, specifically the right of attorney-client relationship which entitles an artificial person to be eligible for attorney’s fees as held in Kay. 10. Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment is violated due to the Highth Circuit’s failure to uphold Supreme Court and Eighth Circuit decisions, and sanctioning said conduct in the District Court, which renders the law so standardless as to be arbitrary.