I. Did the Fourth Circuit defy this Court's remand instruction and circumvent 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2)'s limitations on federal court authority by finding forfeiture based on the State not having offered the statutory argument as an alternative ground to deny relief on the claim when the State was defending on appeal the district court's sole finding of default?

II. If forfeiture, did the Fourth Circuit err in granting relief on a defaulted ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim by violating basic principles of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) that require reviewing courts afford deference to reasonable strategy and that the whole of the evidence be considered in a prejudice analysis? See, e.g., Wong v. Belmontes, 558 U.S. 15, 20 (2009).

Whether the Fourth Circuit defied the Supreme Court's remand instruction and circumvented 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2)'s limitations on federal court authority