Whether the statute requires the district court to consider all evidence relevant to the applicant's guilt or innocence, even evidence unrelated to the constitutional violation, or whether the inquiry is more circumscribed

QUESTION PRESENTED Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B)Gi), a claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application must be dismissed before a hearing on the merits unless: the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for the constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense. The statute does not define “evidence as a whole,” and the circuits have adopted significantly different interpretations. Does the statute require the district court to consider all evidence relevant to the applicant’s guilt or innocence—even evidence that is unrelated to the constitutional violation—as the majority of circuits has held, or is the inquiry more circumscribed, as the minority position holds (including the Eighth Circuit here)?