Was the state court's summary denial of Petitioner's habeas claims alleging defense counsel's failure to investigate, develop and present available evidence of mitigation at the penalty phase contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law?

1. Was the state court’s summary denial of Petitioner’s habeas claims alleging defense counsel’s failure to investigate, develop and present available evidence of mitigation at the penalty phase after priming the jurors during death qualification voir dire for a mitigation case demonstrating what made Petitioner “tick”, contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court, or an unreasonable determination of the facts, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)? 2. Would it be unreasonable for a state court to conclude that, in light of the aggravating circumstances in this case, there is no reasonable probability of a different result if counsel had presented the substantial evidence of Petitioner’s brain damage, childhood trauma and childhood sexual abuse?