Does the reasoning within Malloy v Hogan require specifically apply to claims of insufficiency or ineffective counsel, and were the federal habeas reviewing courts in error, under 28 USCS § 2254 (d)(1), including the application of state facts under (d)(2), when state court standards were incompatible with this Court's standards?

QUESTION PRESENTED 1. Does the reasoning within Malloy v Hogan, 378 US 1, 10, 12 LEd2d 653, 84 SCt 1489 (1964) require specifically apply to claims of insufficiency or ineffective counsel, and were the federal habeas reviewing courts in error, under 28 USCS § 2254 (d)(1), including the application of state facts under (d)(2), when state court standards were incompatible with this Court’s standards? 2. What level of deference, or depth of “look-through presumption”, via Wilson v Sellers, 584 US __, 200 LEd2d 530, 138 SCt 1188 (2018), must a federal habeas court resort to in order to properly dismiss a federal habeas petition under 28 USCS 2254 (d)(1) or (d)(2) or must a federal habeas court require briefing and/or hearings on potential denials prior to dismissal via 2254 (d)(1) or (d)(2) under Miller-El v Cockrell, 537 US 322, 336-337, 123 SCt 1029, 154 LEd2d 931 (2003)? 3. Does a presumption of correctness or “in the light most favorable to the prosecution” found in Jackson v Virginia, 443 US 307, 61 LEd2d 560 (1979) change the requirement that each inference or presumption require its own supporting fact(s) in Blumenthal v US, 332 US 539, 52 LEd 154, 68 SCt 248 (1947)(citing US v Ross, 92 US 281, 282, 23 Led 707, 708( 1876)): or may an inference be supported by another inference which is supported by fact(s)? 4. Was Pearson’s conviction in violation of the federal constitution? Page ii