1. Does the Fifth Circuit's application of § 2254(d) —which explicitly requires deference to unreasonable state court opinions if the federal court can come up with a plausible replacement rationale —survive this Court's decision in Wilson and, if not, does identifying the state court reasoning and deferring to it without subjecting it to meaningful review in light of the state court record comply with the Court's rules for applying § 2254(d)?

2. When assessing whether counsel's deficient failure to discover and present mitigating evidence prejudiced the outcome of a trial, may the reviewing court entirely or partially discount the new evidence as "cumulative" if a generic equivalent or related evidence was before the jury; or must the court consider the impact of all the evidence?

3. Whether a Batson v. Kentucky claim fails solely because the prosecutor has proffered at least one reason that is uncontradicted by the record, or whether reviewing courts must consider all of the evidence of racial motivation, including other proffered and indisputably disingenuous reasons.

Whether the Fifth Circuit's application of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) survives Wilson v. Sellers and whether the court must consider the impact of all mitigating evidence when assessing prejudice