(1) In order to obtain relief under § 2254(d)(2), is a federal court required to review the state court's finding of facts to determine if it is "unreasonable" or can the court simply presume that the state court fact finding is correct without further review?

(a) If review is required, and the petitioner presents clear and convincing evidence rebutting the state court's finding of facts with clear and convincing evidence, must the federal court then undertake a § 2254(e)(1) review and analysis of the evidence or can it be ignored under the pretext of an impenetrable presumption that the state court determination was correct? and;

(b) What is the interplay between § 2254(d)(2) and § 2254(e)(1)?

(2) Did the 10th Circuit err in refusing to give any review of certain claims by Mr. Dyer by:

(a) Improperly merging Mr. Dyer's 3rd claim "The Trial Was Infected By False Testimony" with his 5th claim "Prosecutorial Misconduct".

(b) Erroneously ruling that Dyer did not properly exhaust his Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel claim in State Court.

Whether a federal court is required to review the state court's finding of facts to determine if it is 'unreasonable' or can the court simply presume that the state court fact finding is correct without further review