Does a brief written by the prosecution in a State habeas proceeding, and then rubber-stamped by State judges, qualify as a judgment entitled to deference under the AEDPA, 28 U.S.C. § 2254?

1. Does a brief written by the p rosecution in a State h abeas proceeding, and then rubber -stamped by State j udges, qualify as a j udgment entitled to d eference under the AEDPA , 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ? 2. Did the Eleventh Circuit err when it denied a Certificate of Appealability on the rubber -stamping issue based on what it acknowledged was an improper standard of review? 3. Do the failures of defense counsel in a capital trial to perform any meaningful investigation, or to develop a defense case for reduced culpability or mitigation of sentence, satisfy this Court’s tests for effective assistance of counsel as articulated in Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984) ; Williams v. Taylor , 529 U.S. 362 (2000) ; Wiggins v. Smith , 539 U.S. 510 (2003) ; Rompilla v. Beard , 545 U.S. 374 (2005) ; and Andrus v. Texas, 590 U.S. 806 (2020) ?