1. In applying Cullen v. Pinholster 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011) to a habeas corpus
claim based on whether or not the section 2254 (d)(l)condition to asc^ptt'the state
Court's descriptions of the facts or to uphold its application of law without inde
pendently evaluating what supports (or does not support) the basis justifies (or does
not justify) the Court's application of the law is inconsistent with the resposibili-
ties of a federl habeas court under section 2254 (d). [ E) Joes'" therdistrict' court have
the duty to obtain that record itselfTtrriee- section 2254(g)?

2. In applying Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (20011), to a habeas corpus
claim based on. the state's unreasonable application of the Constitutional standard
for effective assistance of counsel in violation of 28 USC § 2254 (d)(1), can the
federal court "hypothesize" about possible "tactical choices" trial counsel might have
made on the basis of facts which have been unreasonably determined by the state court,
in violation of subsection (d)(2).

3. In applying Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011), to a habeas corpus
claim based on the state's unreasonable application of the Constitutional standard
for effective assistance of counsel in violation of 28 USC § 2254 (d)(1), can the fe
deral court "hypothesize" about possible ''tactical choices" trial counsel might have
made on the basis of facts which are, pursuant to subdivision (e)(1),uundermined by
clear and convincing evidence in the state court record?

Whether a federal habeas court can independently evaluate state court factual determinations under Cullen v. Pinholster and Harrington v. Richter when assessing ineffective assistance of counsel claims