Opinion ID: 44502
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Deferential Standard of Review

Text: “[W]e review de novo the district court’s resolution of questions of law and of mixed questions of law and fact.” Conklin v. Schofield, 366 F.3d 1191, 1199 (11th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 952 (2005). However, under AEDPA, a federal court may not grant habeas relief unless the state court’s decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” or “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)-(2). The state court’s factual determinations are “presumed to be correct” and the petitioner has the “burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence.” 28 5 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1).