1. Did the Tenth Circuit err in concluding that Moore I and Moore II were mere applications of Atkins that could be applied retroactively on collateral review, contrary to Shoop v. Hill, 139 S.Ct. 504, 505 (2019) (per curiam), and the Eleventh Circuit?

2. In sua sponte holding that the OCCA did not rule on the adaptive-functioning prong because its analysis was too cursory, did the Tenth Circuit violate this Court's precedent that forbids the imposition of opinion-writing standards, Johnson v. Williams, 568 U.S. 289, 300 (2013)?

3. Whether reviewed de novo or with deference, did the Tenth Circuit err in granting habeas relief on Smith's claim of adaptive-functioning deficits where Smith's only expert to opine on this prong improperly administered the adaptive-functioning assessment directly to Smith, contemporaneously administered other tests to Smith that showed malingering, and relied on information that was disputed by other witnesses?

Whether the Tenth Circuit erred in concluding that Moore v. Texas I and II were mere applications of Atkins v. Virginia that could be applied retroactively on collateral review, in violation of Shoop v. Hill and creating a circuit split