Jurisdiction-to-address-non-adjudicated-claims

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW When the District Court denies a Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255, all the claims must be addressed. This Court in Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 316, 126 S. Ct. 941, 163 L. Ed. 2d 797 (2006) determined that an appeals court lacks jurisdiction to address non-adjudicated claims. With this introduction the following question is presented for review: I. Did the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals have jurisdiction to deny or address the claims raised on Johnson’s Title 28 U.S.C. § 2253 in his request for a Certificate of Appealability when the District Court did not address and/or deny the claims in the original title 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Il. Should a writ of certiorari be granted to determine if Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984) if the Eight Circuit erred in not granting a Certificate of Appealability, even though the record was inconclusive on the allegations. III. Should a writ of certiorari be granted to determine if a Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) violation occurs when the government withholds a substantial number of exculpatory items that were crucial for the defense pe