1. Whether Lockhart v. Fretwell's suggestion that "mere outcome determination" is not sufficient to establish prejudice under Strickland v. Washington is part of the "clearly established law" governing the state court's ruling, in light of subsequent limiting decisions.

2. If not, whether a state court's denial of an ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim based on the harmless error standard in effect at the time of the post-conviction action, rather than deciding whether the result of the appeal would be different, is contrary to or an unreasonable application of Strickland v. Washington and Smith v. Robbins.

Whether Lockhart v. Fretwell's suggestion that 'mere outcome determination' is not sufficient to establish prejudice under Strickland v. Washington is part of the 'clearly established law' governing the state court's ruling, in light of subsequent limiting decisions