1. Whether the Ninth Circuit majority unreasonably applied clearly established Supreme Court law by approving as reasonable a state court prejudice analysis that did not consider the effect of presumed competent counsel advice on likelihood of petitioner accepting the offer?

2. Whether the Ninth Circuit majority unreasonably applied clearly established Supreme Court law by approving as reasonable a state court prejudice analysis, which (1) categorically excluded from consideration petitioner's declaration that he would have accepted the offer, and (2) required petitioner to prove prejudice to an at least "more likely than not" standard?

Whether the Ninth Circuit majority unreasonably applied clearly established Supreme Court law