Whether the Eighth Circuit departed from the principle of party presentation, introduced clearly erroneous evidence, and conflicted with Supreme Court and its own prior rulings

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1) The Supreme Court recently upheld a ruling unanimously holding that the , | Ninth Circuit "departed so drastically from the principle of party presentation as to : constitute an abuse of discretion" and remanded the case for reconsideration. | (United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 140 S. Ct. 1575 (2020) Shouldn't the Eighth Circuit's case be remanded for reconsideration by not only drastically departing from the principal of party presentation, introducing clearly erroneous evidence not previously on record, and being in direct conflict of the United States Supreme Court's and their own previous rulings? The court's choices to introduce unsubstantiated conclusions were not only extremely prejudicial in determining the outcome of the case, but also severely affected the rights of the petitioner. 2) It was established in (McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 780,130 S.Ct. 3020, 177 L.Ed.2d 894 (2010)) that the Second Amendment guarantee is applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment and reiterated Heller 's reasoning that “individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right.” 130 S.Ct. at 3036 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599, 128 S. Ct. 2783)." When a state has instituted laws to assure the protection of one's constitutional rights and an agent of that state, (Chief of Police), knowingly, and unnecessarily, denies one's constitutional right without due process, and continues to do so after an order from the court to cease said violation, is that not clearly a Section 42 U.S.C. § 1983 violation? 3) In consideration of Kimball's Appellate Brief, Statement of Issues for Review, No. VI. "Did the District Court abuse their discretion by introducing erroneous facts and arguments not on record and denying Mr. Kimball's request for Leave to Amend", is that notification for, and warrants an abuse of discretion review? 1 + » 4 .