Whether the Second Circuit erred in rejecting the district court's prejudice determination without consulting the underlying 911 call recordings, without notifying the parties that the unchallenged ancillary factual finding would be reviewed, and without according the parties an opportunity to present a position on it

ESTIONS PRESEN TED FOR REVIEW 1. The prejudice component of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), presents a mixed question of law and fact. Jd. at 698. When a district court decides that question upon independently finding facts after holding an evidentiary hearing, does the clear error or the de novo standard apply on review of its decision? The Second Circuit held that the de novo standard applies without regard to whether answering the mixed question entails primarily legal or factual work — splitting with the First and Third Circuits and departing from the general rule for mixed questions announced in U.S. Bank N.A. v. Village at Lakeridge, LLC, 583 U.S. ——, ——, 138 S.Ct. 960, 967, 200 L.Ed.2d 218 (2018). 2. Where the appellant’s brief did not challenge a factual finding ancillary to a Strickland prejudice determination which it challenged in other respects, did the court of appeals abuse its discretion in reviewing the factual finding sua sponte, without notice to the parties or according them an opportunity to present a position? -i