(1) Did the district court deny Mr. Robertson the meaningful representation informed by investigation to prepare a habeas corpus application to which he is entitled under 18 U.S.C. § 3599?

(2) Would a reasonable lawyer representing a death-sentenced prisoner pursue an investigation of a "bedrock" Sixth Amendment claim under the totality of the circumstances of this case?

(3) Was the Sixth Amendment claim identified by counsel representing the petitioner a "plausible" one within the meaning of Ayestas v. Davis, 138 S. Ct. 1080 (2018)?

(4) Does an attempt to amend a habeas corpus application following an appellate court's reversal and remand for further proceedings related to the provision of representation by the district court on the initial application constitute a second or successive habeas corpus application under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)?

Did the district court deny Mr. Robertson the meaningful representation informed by investigation to prepare a habeas corpus application to which he is entitled under 18 U.S.C. § 3599?