Whether federal court deference to state court summary disposition of habeas claims includes deference to state court's established process and procedures

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Under 28 U.S.C. §2254(d)(2) and this Court’s decision in Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011), does a federal court’s deference to a state court’s summary disposition of a habeas corpus claim include deference to the state court’s established process and procedures for determining whether, on the record before it, a prima facie case has been made out? 2. Under Richter v. Harrington, 562 U.S. 86 (2011), a state court’s determination that a claim lacks merit precludes federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) so long as fairminded jurists could disagree on the correctness of the state court’s decision. Does that same deference preclude federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C.§ 2254(d) when a three judge panel finds under Stickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) that the petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel during the guilt phase of the trial, but two of the three judges have a disagreement with whether or not the petitioner was prejudiced because, in theory, some fairminded jurist might disagree with them?