Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): by other inmates to say that Bishop, who had solicited the murder, did not know the murder had occurred until after it happened. The district court denied Bishop’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, explaining that the evidence that Bishop alleged should have been presented at sentencing, did not bear on two of three aggravating factors, each of which was independently relied on by the state sentencing court, and that Bishop failed to show that the omitted evidence would have affected the state sentencing court’s departure analysis. Thus the district court declined to disturb the decision of the state post-conviction court, which had denied relief on the basis that Bishop failed to show prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254; see also Alvarado v. Hill, 252 F.3d 1066, 1068 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks and citations 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a state courts affirmance of two consecutive 25yearstolife sentences for petty theft was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law (B) holding that the ninth circuit improperly granted habeas relief because the state courts decision that it was not inherently prejudicial when court spectators wore buttons depicting the murder victim was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law (C) holding that the federal habeas courts task is to determine if the state courts decision was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the supreme court of the united states (D) holding that our courts are bound by the united states supreme courts interpretation of the federal constitution (E) holding that state courts affirmance of two consecutive 25yearstolife sentences for petty theft was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law
Output (English): holding that a state courts affirmance of two consecutive 25yearstolife sentences for petty theft was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law