Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): to follow established procedures for accepting such a plea. After reviewing the state court record, including the transcripts of White’s plea hearing and the hearing on the motion to withdraw plea, the district court concluded that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ resolution of White’s coerced plea and ineffective assistance claims was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). As to White’s claim that the state trial court failed to comply with state procedures regarding the acceptance of a guilty plea, the district court concluded that the claim was not cognizable in a § 2254 petition because it involved a simple alleged error of state law. See Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780, 110 S.Ct. 3092, 111 L.Ed.2d 606 (1990) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the district court concluded 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that federal habeas relief is not available to correct errors of state law (B) holding that errors in state law cannot support federal habeas relief (C) holding that gardenvariety errors of state law do not warrant federal habeas relief (D) holding that claim of cumulative error does not entitle state prisoner to habeas corpus relief unless 1 claim of cumulative error refers to errors rather than mere unfavorable rulings or events 2 habeas review is not procedurally barred and 3 the errors more likely than not caused a suspect verdict (E) holding that federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law
Output (English): holding that claim of cumulative error does not entitle state prisoner to habeas corpus relief unless 1 claim of cumulative error refers to errors rather than mere unfavorable rulings or events 2 habeas review is not procedurally barred and 3 the errors more likely than not caused a suspect verdict