Did the Sixth Circuit err by applying the pre-Wilson 'could-have-reasoned' approach—which blatantly disregarded Wilson and created a split with other Circuits—warranting the grant of this petition or, in the alternative, summary reversal?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW In Wilson v. Sellers, 138 S. Ct. 1188 (2018), this Court explicitly stated that a federal court on habeas review must look to the actwal reasoning of the lastreasoned state court opinion, not what the state court could have reasoned under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). The Sixth Circuit, in disregard of Wilson’s command, explicitly relied on a new legal theory not included in the relevant state court opinion and affirmed Petitioner Mary Danielak’s conviction on that basis. Did the Sixth Circuit err by applying the preWilson approach—which blatantly disregarded Wilson and created a split with other Circuits—warranting the grant of this petition or, in the alternative, summary reversal? i