Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing on ineffective-assistance-of-counsel and unlawful-traffic-stop claims

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED _ Oo In the context of a motion under 28 U.S.C-§ 2255 and a sub: . Sequent Application for Certificate of Appealability (COA) under. : : 28 U.S.C. § 2253 Petitioner presents the following two questions: : I. After following Buéhheim for over 8 minutes, undercover off; : icers initiated a traffic stop, called for a narcotics can: ‘ ~ ine, and then waited for a computer equipped squad car to Log : . 4 : issue a speeding citation. Evidence. discovered during post conviction proceedings established the officers had.the means : ‘ to issue a manual citation and no delay was necessary, despite ‘what the suppression court found and held as the reason’ to a deny suppression. : ; : Did the ‘district court abuse its discretion when it ; refused to order an evidentiary hearing on: (1) Was © ; ‘ Counsel Constitutionally ineffective for not discovering : the readily available. facts that one of the. stop's _ ; officers had been issued a manual citation book and was ' permitted by policy to issue manual citations?; and (2) .° . Whether the traffic stop was impermissibly delayed under Rodriguez v United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015) '? : . II. This Court has consistently construed AEDPA's COA clause to | ensure habeas corpus petitioners, who were denied relief in . ; the district court, have a meaningful opportunity for review. . . Buchheim's application for COA raised substantial’ questions ; ef law, novel Rodriguez questions, and factual record conflJ : icts. In a one sentence judgement the Eighth Circuit denied the application in its entirety. , Did. the’ Eighth Circuit fail in its statutory and Constitutional ‘obligation to provide Buchheim with a . : meaningful review of his habeas denial? Additionally: Dees the paucity of the panel's opinion unreasonably ., interfere with meaningful review of its decision? 1 Please note Fourth Amendment challenges are cognizable in post conviction . proceedings in the Eighth Circuit. See Baranski v United States, 515 F.3d 857, 860 (8th Cir. 2008) | co ; _ LISTOF PARTIES... Oe ix] All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. ‘[-] All parties ‘do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of all ,