1. In United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 140 S. Ct. 1575, 1578 (2020), this Court held that the Ninth Circuit "departed so drastically from the principle of party presentation" of issues to require reversal because "[i]nstead of adjudicating the case presented by the parties," the court decided a criminal appeal on an issue it raised on its own. Did the Ninth Circuit violate this principle in petitioner's habeas corpus appeal where respondent agreed with petitioner in his briefs that the district court correctly held an evidentiary hearing and properly reviewed petitioner's claim de novo, but the Court of Appeals denied relief on the ground that petitioner's pro se state court allegations were insufficient, an issue it raised three days before oral argument and decided without briefing?

2. Does a pro se habeas petitioner sufficiently plead a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel by alleging and supporting with available documentary evidence that his lawyer advised him to reject a plea offer of three years because he could beat the charges; he would have taken the offer if counsel had advised him to do so; the court would have accepted his plea (it did for his two co-defendants); the sentence under the offer's terms was less severe than the 21-year sentence imposed after conviction at trial; and any strategy for beating the charges was wholly unreasonable?

Whether the Ninth Circuit violated the principle of party presentation by raising and deciding an issue sua sponte in petitioner's habeas appeal