1. In holding that the OCCA made an "unreasonable determination of the facts," did the Tenth Circuit contravene this Court's repeated admonition that "state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt," Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181 (2011); Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24 (2002) (per curiam)?

2. Was the OCCA objectively unreasonable in crediting the testimony of three experts who opined that Harris was not intellectually disabled and not crediting the testimony of the one dissenting doctor, who has been censured, used an outdated test, made no assessment of adaptive functioning, and disregarded the influence of factors he acknowledged could influence IQ test scores?

Whether the Tenth Circuit contravened Supreme Court precedent in holding that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals made an unreasonable determination of the facts