1. Does a federal appellate court violate a capital habeas petitioner's rights to a meaningful appeal and habeas review of a federal constitutional claim, certified for appeal, that the petitioner's trial counsel had rendered prejudicially ineffective performance, when that court refuses to even consider, as purportedly forfeited and/or waived, additional arguments and authorities in support of the prejudice resulting from trial counsel's deficient performance, in circumstances where both the party-presentation principle precludes such refusal and this Court's precedent firmly permits appellate presentation of such additional arguments and authorities in support of a properly-presented federal constitutional claim?

2. Is trial counsel prejudicially ineffective in the penalty phase of a capital case, in violation of the capital defendant's rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, by presenting only one witness (Petitioner's father) and asking only one substantive question, when there was much more compelling mitigation evidence to present, including expert testimony about Petitioner's mental health, testimony from Petitioner's mother and sister and the mothers of his children, testimony about his employment and his good behavior in jail, and testimony and argument about the "strong provocation" entailed by the victim's disloyal acts of snitching against her own friends and lovers including Petitioner to help send them to prison in order to spare herself that same fate?

3. Does it violate the Eighth and/or Fourteenth Amendments and the right to due process, and unreasonably apply federal law and/or unreasonably determine the facts, when both state and federal courts refuse to conduct an evidentiary hearing concerning an affidavit presented in state court in which a convicted murderer confessed to committing the murder for which Petitioner is sentenced to death, and the evidence in support of Petitioner's guilt is weak and consists primarily of "snitch" testimony and testimony of other biased witnesses, and thereby entitling Petitioner to a hearing in federal court on his claim under Brady v. Maryland?

Whether a federal appellate court violates a capital habeas petitioner's rights by refusing to consider additional arguments and authorities in support of a properly-presented federal constitutional claim