1. Whether the Eighth Circuit's practice of issuing unexplained summary denials of certificates of appealability in capital cases conflicts with 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and this Court's decisions in Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 889 (1983) and Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2008).

2. Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and this Court's decision in Barefoot and its progeny require a certificate of appealability to issue when one circuit judge of a court of appeals' administrative panel tasked with this decision, in dissent, finds that a certificate of appealability should issue.

3. Whether a reviewing court, in assessing trial counsel's overall performance and prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), should consider the cumulative effect of multiple errors of counsel in determining whether a Sixth Amendment violation occurred.

4. Whether a state court decision that truncated a Sixth Amendment claim of ineffectiveness of counsel in the penalty phase under Wiggins into separate components in assessing deficient performance and prejudice is contrary to clearly established federal law under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).

Whether the Eighth Circuit's practice of issuing unexplained summary denials of certificates of appealability in capital cases conflicts with 28-U.S.C-2253, Barefoot-v-Estelle, Miller-El-v-Cockrell