Whether the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals erred

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Whether the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals erred by entering the decision. "We also find no abuse of discretion in the admission, with a limiting instruction, of testimony that officers observed Carter involved in what appeared to be hand-tohand drug transactions on multiple days shortly before they dated and executed their search warrant, because the uncharged conduct was “inextricably intertwined" with the charged offenses. See United States v. O'Dell, 204 F.3d 829, 833 (8th Cir. 2000)., in conflict with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, "Defendant's rights under U.S. Const. Amend. VI's Confrontation Clause were violated when a law enforcement agent testified that he knew defendant had received a large amount of methamphetamine based on what he was told by a confidential informant, and the testimony about his conversation with the confidential informant _ pointed directly at defendant and his guilt in the crime charged: . {2]-The error was not invited or harmless, because the defense simply pointed out an inconsistency between the agent's testimony : that he did not observe a drug transaction, and his assertion that he knew defendant -had received the drugs and_ the inadmissible evidence was highly incriminating. QUESTION(S) PRESENTED (2) "(W]hether the Eighth Circuit erred in rejecting the Supreme ; Court's Napue violation test and instead creating a per se rule ; | ii . that because the report was available to Movant's counsel at trial, Movant's claim that counsel should have requested fails. : Likewise, his reliance on the contents of the report in support of his chain-of-custody argument is fatal to his claim that counsel should have objected to its admission. | QUESTION(S) PRESENTED (3) Whether the Eighth Circuit erred in rejecting the Supreme Court's Strickland test and instead creating a per se rule.