Whether the Certificate of Appealability process, as currently implemented, provides meaningful judicial review under 28 U.S.C. §2253 and Miller El v. Cockrell

Broeker s case set precedent in the 8th Circuit that undermines "Burrage " presuming any drug deal that precedes a< death causes it and putting the burden to prove otherwise on the Defendant. In Broeker's case he was not able to meet this burden because evidence in his favor was excluded. He was denied any review of this claim and misapplication of the Certificate of Appealability process has left him with no forum for review of his claim that he was convicted in violation of the Constitution. I. Where only a "miniscule percentage" of C.O.A. requests are granted, are the lower courts genuinely giving review, as required by 28 U.S.C. §2253? Does "Miller El v. Cockrell '," 537 US 322 (2003) prohibit pro forma" denials "as a matter of course" the way it prohibits similar grants? II. Can a Court decline to address on §2255 an issue that was dis missed for procedural reasons, like failure to preserve, on direct appeal? III. By creating a presumption that the last known sale of drugs caused any resulting death, no matter how much time, intervening events, or toxicology reports call this into question, has the 8th Circuit departed from this Court's holding in "Burrage v. United States," 571 US 204 (2014) and created a Circuit Split? Can this presumption be applied where the Courthas excluded evidence of other sources of drugs? IV. Does the "results in death" provision of §841 impermissibly treat as murder unforeseen, and unforeseeable, excessive use or i Questions Presented Cont. misuse of controlled substances beyond the Defendant's control and intent? Should this departure from traditional legal liability principles for third party "misuse of product" be reconsidered in light of 1 'Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Americanos Mexicanos," No. 23-114 (2025)? ii