Does this Court's clearly established precedent under Strickland v. Washington permit lower courts to hold that trial counsel's performance categorically 'cannot be [ ] unreasonable' whenever they, without any investigation, follows their client's instructions?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Does this Court's clearly established precedent under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and its progeny permit lower courts to hold that trial counsel’s performance categorically “cannot be [ ] unreasonable” whenever they, without any investigation, follows their client's instructions? 2. Whether lower courts faithfully apply the standard for substitution of counsel under 18 U.S.C. § 3599 when those courts, unlike their sister courts, require that capital habeas petitioners satisfy a substantive burden beyond showing a facially sound reason for substitution of counsel before conducting the inquiry required by this Court’s cases.