Did the federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal apply the correct legal standard in accordance to Strickland's prejudicial prong when petitioner(s) right of confrontation claim was previously meritorious warranting a new trial?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Did the federal Fifth Circuit Cowt of Appeal “apply” the correct legal standard in accordance to Strickland’s prejudicial prong when petitioner(s) right of confrontation claim was previously meritorious warranting a(n) new trial? 2. Can the reliance of testimonial evidence become investigative procedure, dispensing with confrontation of inadmissible evidence barred by this Honorable Court? 3. Does the decision of the federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal conflict with decisions of this Honorable Court when Crawford v. Washington, infra, created a “substantial” ground of defense, allowing counsel clearly established procedure(s) at reasonable representing petitioner? 4. Whether the Louisiana Supreme Court decision to reinstate petitioner's conviction and sentence, disregarded clearly established law, without any legal guidance to do so? 2.