1. Whether the Eleventh Circuit's adherence to its self-styled "no-grading-papers, anti-flyspecking rule" for the application of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) is incompatible with this Court's directive in Wilson v. Sellers, 138 S.Ct. 1188, 1192 (2018), that a federal court must "review[] the specific reasons given by the state court and defer[] to those reasons if they are reasonable"?

2. Whether the Eleventh Circuit erred in this case when it denied habeas relief by creating and deferring to its own reasons supporting the state court decision instead of assessing the objective reasonableness of that decision in light of the record and this Court's clearly established law?

Whether the Eleventh Circuit's adherence to its 'no-grading-papers-anti-flyspecking-rule' is incompatible with Wilson-v-Sellers