When a State court's summary denial assumed the truth of the facts plead in a State habeas writ application and a Federal habeas court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), evaluates whether that State court decision involved an unreasonable application of Strickland to the facts of the case, does the "could have supported" framework of Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) give the Federal court an excuse to "invent" as a reason for the State court's decision historical facts which, according to the State's established practice, the State court did not actually rely on for the decision?

Does 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) require a Certificate of Appealability ("COA") for a State prisoner to appeal the denial of pre-trial motions related to the procedures and standards (such as in GROUND ONE) used in evaluating the merits of a § 2254 Habeas Petition?

Was Cruz's court-appointed counsel at the second trial ineffective in violation of the 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when counsel was silent on the determinative issue on Cruz's decision to reject the 7 and 10 year pre-trial plea bargain offers or when counsel provided misadvise about the punishment hearing defense for the 20 year mid-trial plea bargain offer?

Whether the 'could have supported' framework of Harrington v. Richter allows a federal court to 'invent' historical facts not relied upon by the state court