1) Does this court's decision in Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S.170;
131 S.CT. 1388 (2011), permit an exception whereby federal
courts may consider newly developed evidence when the failure
to develop that evidence in state court was a result of inade
quate-legal representation and the constrained process that
hampers the development of the factual record?

2) Does this court's decision in Slack v. McDaniel . 529 U.S'. 473;
120 S.CT. 1595 (2000), be permitted to allow a "safety Valve."
from Pinholster's ban on evaluating hew evidence under Slack^*s
clause that the issues presented are "adequate to deserve en
couragement to proceed! further" with the appellate process?

Does the Cullen v. Pinholster decision permit an exception for federal courts to consider newly developed evidence when state court representation was inadequate?