Opinion ID: 4306158
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: “We review the district court’s legal conclusions in habeas proceedings de novo and its findings of fact for clear error.” Akins v. Easterling, 648 F.3d 380, 385 (6th Cir. 2011). The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) precludes federal courts from providing relief on habeas claims that were previously adjudicated on the merits in state court unless the state-court adjudication (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that 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). A state-court decision is “contrary to” clearly established precedent “if the state court applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in [the Supreme Court’s] cases,” or “if the state court confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of [the Supreme Court] and nevertheless arrives at a result different from [the Supreme Court’s] precedent.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405–06 (2000). Where the state court “correctly identifies the governing legal rule but applies it unreasonably to the facts of a particular prisoner’s case,” the state court has rendered “a decision ‘involv[ing] an unreasonable No. 17-5038 Ayers v. Hall Page 6 application of . . . clearly established Federal law.’” Id. at 407–08 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)) (alterations in original). If we conclude that the Kentucky Supreme Court acted contrary to clearly established federal law, we must “review the merits of the petitioner’s claim de novo.” Dyer v. Bowlen, 465 F.3d 280, 284 (6th Cir. 2006).