1. Whether a federal court violates the "party presentation principle " and exceeds its
authority under United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 140 S. Ct. 1575 (2020), and Wood v. Milyard,
566 U.S. 463 (2012), by sua sponte invoking a procedural default defense that the State expressly
waived by twice electing to litigate the merits of the petition in its responsive pleadings.

2. Whether a pro se habeas petitioner satisfies the "fair presentation " requirement under
Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270 (1971), and Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27 (2004), by providing
the "substantial equivalent " of a federal claim through reliance on state precedents that apply
federal constitutional standards - specifically where the petitioner satisfies the multi-factor test
established by the circuit court of appeals to guide such exhaustion.

3. Whether a federal court 's refusal to reach the merits of a habeas petition - despite a
state-court error so "egregious " and "lacking in justification " that it defies fair-minded
disagreement - constitutes a failure to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice under Harrington
v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011).

4. Whether a state court 's' harmless-error determination is "unreasonable " under 28
U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) and (d)(2) when the court (a) fails to conduct the mandatory "impact on the
jury" analysis required by Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967), and (b) bases its
"overwhelming evidence " finding on a factual record of conflicting and inconsistent testimony
that was bolstered by the unconstitutional admission of "other acts" evidence.

Whether a federal court violates the party presentation principle by sua sponte invoking a procedural default defense that the State expressly waived, whether a pro se habeas petitioner satisfies the fair presentation requirement through reliance on state precedents applying federal constitutional standards, whether a federal court's refusal to reach the merits despite egregious state-court error constitutes a failure to prevent manifest miscarriage of justice, and whether a state court's harmless-error determination is unreasonable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) when it fails to conduct the mandatory impact-on-jury analysis and bases its finding on conflicting testimony bolstered by unconstitutional other-acts evidence