1. When reviewing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo, are courts permitted to credit hypothetical reasons for trial counsel's errors irrespective of the record, as the Ninth Circuit did here, or must a court consider the record evidence in determining the reasonableness of trial counsel's actions, as the Second, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth (intra-circuit conflict) Circuits, as well as the D.C. Court of Appeals, have held?

2. When reviewing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo, does a court's extensive and material misapprehension of the underlying record violate federal law requiring prejudice to be assessed by reweighing the totality of the available mitigating evidence against the evidence in aggravation?

Question not identified.