1. Whether trial counsel has an obligation to conduct a comprehensive mitigation investigation when clear red flags suggest compelling mitigation, including physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, neglect, addiction, and mental health problems?

2. Whether a capital petitioner must demonstrate new mitigating factors in postconviction proceedings in order to establish prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), or can compelling statutory and non-statutory mitigating evidence that strengthens, corroborates and confirms evidence presented at a capital penalty phase and impacts the sentencing calculus establish prejudice?

3. Whether the strengthening of mental health evidence due to increased precision of a diagnosis in postconviction that decreases the weight of the aggravating circumstances while increasing the weight of mitigating factors must be considered in the Strickland prejudice analysis?

4. Whether the Eleventh Circuit misapplied the standard for a certificate of appealability by disregarding judicial disagreement on the retroactivity of Hurst v. Florida, 136 S.Ct. 616 (2016), and/or by addressing the substance of the claim?

Whether trial counsel has an obligation to conduct a comprehensive mitigation investigation