Is Mr. Kilgore entitled to appeal the district court's decision that Missouri did not violate Mr. Kilgore's right to due process of law when he was ordered to participate in a program that did not exist as a condition to obtaining probation?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW After Mr. Kilgore entered a plea of guilty to two counts of child molestation, the court ordered (following a plea agreement) that Mr. Kilgore be sent to the Missouri Department of Corrections for a 120-day “program,” the Missouri Sexual Offender Unit (SOAU). Under Mo Rev. Stat. § 559.115, persons who successfully complete this “program” may be released on probation.. However, the SOAU simply evaluates the prisoner and decides whether to recommend probation. No treatment or education is provided. Mr. Kilgore was unaware of this when he entered his plea. The prison did not recommend probation, and Mr. Kilgore is now serving his prison sentence. After habeas corpus proceedings, Mr. Kilgore was denied relief and a certificate of appealability without explanation. The case thus presents the following questions: 1. Is Mr. Kilgore entitled to appeal the district court’s decision that Missouri did not violate Mr. Kilgore’s right to due process of law when he was ordered to participate in a program that did not exist as a condition to obtaining probation? 2. s Mr. Kilgore entitled to appeal the district court’s decision that Mr. Kilgore’s plea of guilty was voluntary and conformed to due process despite the fact that he was not informed of the true nature of the SOAU “program” before he entered his plea of guilty? 3. Did the court of appeals’ unexplained denial of a COA as to any grounds improperly insulate its decision from review by this Court? i