Whether a reviewing court must strictly adhere to the Supreme Court's clearly erroneous standard of review or engage in less deferential review when finding fact-findings insufficient, and whether such deviation violates a defendant's due process rights

Whether a reviewing court must strictly adhere to the Supreme Court requirement that a district court’s fact -findings “must not be set aside unless clearly erroneous”, or whether the reviewing court may engage in its own review with less deference when the court of appeals decides the fact -findings are insufficient. Whether a reviewing court’s failure to apply clearly established Supreme Court standard of review that “deferential review of mixed questions of law and fact is warranted when it appears that the district court is ‘better positioned’ than the appellate cou rt to decide the issue in question or that probing appellate scrutiny will not contribute to the clarity of legal doctrine” violates a defendant’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.