1. For penalty phase ineffective assistance of counsel violations, has Richter "established a substantial likelihood standard for evaluating prejudice" that exceeds the Wiggins standard of a "reasonable probability that at least one juror would have struck a different balance" on whether to punish by death?

2. Did the Fifth Circuit's failure to "reweigh the evidence in aggravation against the totality of available mitigating evidence" conflict with Wiggins and Andrus?

Whether Richter established a higher prejudice standard for penalty phase IAC violations than Wiggins