1. Is the Fifth Circuit's refusal to apply this Court's definition of an adjudication "on the merits" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) debatable among jurists of reason?

2. Could reasonable jurists debate that trial counsel's near total failure to investigate Medina's case, and the ensuing consequences, violated Medina's right to the effective assistance of counsel?

Whether the Fifth Circuit's interpretation of 'adjudication on the merits' under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) conflicts with Supreme Court precedent in Johnson v. Williams