1. Did the Seventh Circuit err when it reviewed the merits of Gonzales's claim de novo, did not analyze the particular reasons the Wisconsin court provided, and then "deferred"?

2. Did the Seventh Circuit err in deferring to the state court's decision when that decision involves an unreasonable application of Strickland and is based on an unreasonable determination of the facts?

3. Did the Seventh Circuit err when it concluded that counsel's performance was not deficient without assessing whether her performance was reasonable under prevailing professional norms?

Did the Seventh Circuit err when it reviewed the merits of Gonzales's claim de novo, did not analyze the particular reasons the Wisconsin court provided, and then 'deferred?