Whether the California courts' and Ninth Circuit's rejection of an Ex Post Facto Clause claim violates clearly established U.S. Supreme Court precedent and whether procedural default based on California's contemporaneous objection rule applies to federal ex post facto claims

(1) Whether the California courts ’ and Ninth Circuit ’s rejection of an Ex Post Facto Clause claim —where a more punitive law was applied at sentencing, eliminating a prior statutory eligibility for probation —violates clearly established U.S. Supreme Court precedent. (2) Whether procedural default based on California ’s contemporaneous objection rule applies to federal ex post facto claims, particularly where trial counsel ’s failure to object constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, forfeiting any opportunity to request probation on three lewd act convictions.