Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): under section 2254(d)(1), “a state court need not even be aware of [its] precedents, ‘so long as neither the reasoning nor the result contradicts them.’ ” Id. (quoting Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 7-8, 123 S.Ct. 362, 154 L.Ed.2d 263 (2002) (per curiam)). The state PCR court’s rejection of Wilson’s claim in this case was based on its conclusion that, “the trial judge properly found that [the QCRB report] contained neither exculpatory nor mitigating evidence that was undisclosed in a different form.” J.A. 590. We believe this demonstrates that the court was conducting the proper inquiry, under Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1, 106 S.Ct. 1669, 90 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986), and that therefore its decision was not “contrary to ... clearly established Federal law.” See id. at 5, 106 S.Ct. 1669 (<HOLDING>). We next consider whether the state court 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the relevant question in imposing restitution under the mvra is whether the loss is caused by the specific conduct that is the basis of the offense of conviction (B) holding that the relevant time is the time of the employment decision (C) holding that the relevant time of inquiry is the date of the filing of the complaint (D) holding that a sentencer may not refuse to consider as a matter of law any relevant mitigating evidence (E) holding that the relevant question is whether the courts decision deprived the petitioner of his right to place before the sentencer relevant evidence in mitigation of punishment
Output (English): holding that a sentencer may not refuse to consider as a matter of law any relevant mitigating evidence