Did the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals fail to adhere to the Strickland-standard-of-review

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Did the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, and all previous courts, fail to adhere to the ‘required’ . standard of review set forth in Strickland v. Washington by not reviewing the the conduct of the trial counsel's ‘perspective at the time’ and eliminating the ‘distorting effects of hindsight’ when they applied a direct appeal decision on the trial court's plain error issued four years after the _ verdict when reviewing of ineffective assistance claim for not objecting to incomplete jury ~ instructions at trial before deliberations? ; 2. Does the deference clause of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) supersede the holdings of Strickland v. Washington or should the Courts first apply a proper de novo review of law and fact as to the trial counsel's ineffectiveness as alleged in the habeas . petition before deferring? 3. Was the state court's ruling on habeas petition claims 3 & 9, that were allowed in the COA, . ‘ unreasonable in light of evidence presented as required under § 2254(d)(2)? . . : 4. Did an ex parte ruling on evidence after trial that contradicts the sufficiency of same evidence presented to the jury violate the right to jury trial (U.S. Const. Article Ili Section 'The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury;') as well as the Sixth Amendment | right to counsel and right to be present, and the Fourteenth Amendment due process and , fundamental fairness guarantees? | 5. Does the same Article Ill, the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments insurance of fundamental | fairness, due process and trial by jury demand precise and flawless instructions in ordertogeta _ reliable verdict, especially when a life sentence hangs in the balance? —_ , 6. Did cumulative errors render the trial fundamentally unfair? ; : |