Whether the court of appeals failed to follow this Court's federal habeas jurisprudence

QUESTION PRESENTED Whether, by erroneously affirming Petitioner’s conviction based on a finding that the district court lacked authority to hold an evidentiary hearing as contemplated by Title 28, Section 2254(e)(2), of the United States Code, the court of appeals failed to follow this Court’s federal habeas jurisprudence as set forth in Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011), and thus failed to enforce the Sixth Amendment precedent regarding ineffective assistance of counsel as expressed in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). i