Whether the state court's decision was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of Strickland-v-Washington's-deficient-performance-analysis

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED T) Whether the state court's decision was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of Strickland v. Washington's deficient performance analysis and or Hill v. Lockhart's and Lee v. United States' prejudice analysis where the “state court” determined that the lack of viable defense precluded such findings; ID) Whether the state court's decision was an unreasonable determination of facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court; I) (a) Whether, in order to satisfy 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(2), a movant must establish only that the state-court factual determination on which the decision was based was “unreasonable,” or whether 28 U.S.C. 2254(e)(1) additionally requires a movant to rebut a presumption that the determination was correct with clear and convincing evidence; (b) Also, when a movant attempts to rebut with clear and convincing evidence a presumption that the state court's factual determination was correct under 2254(e)(1), is a movant limited to only evidence that was presented in the state-court or can a movant rely on “extrinsic” evidence properly sought to be introduced in the federal court; IV) Whether Petitioner made a substantial showing that he was denied his constitutional right to a full and fair jury trial due to ineffective assistance of trial counsel in violation of the 5", 6", and 14%, Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, and clearly established federal law in Strickland v. Washington, infra; Hill v. Lockhart, infra, and its progeny; V) Whether this Court's decision in Birchfield v. North Dakota, holding that the State's may not criminally punish offenders for resisting an unconstitutional blood draw should be applied retroactively to cases on collateral review. :