Where plain error review includes a built-in prejudice component, is subjecting an acknowledged plain error to a second round of harmlessness review pursuant to Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) contrary to clearly established federal law?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Where plain error review includes a built-in prejudice component, is subjecting an acknowledged plain error to a second round of harmlessness review pursuant to Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) contrary to clearly established federal law? 2. Must federal courts consider the synergy amongst acknowledged errors, when such individual errors have failed to satisfy their substantive prejudice components, in assessing whether the cumulative effect of the errors results in a constitutional violation? ii