Opinion ID: 626317
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Habeas standard of review

Text: In reviewing requests for federal habeas relief, this Court reviews the district court's findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo, `applying the same standards to the state court's decision as did the district court.' [5] The Saltses' petition is subject to the heightened standard of review under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). [6] AEDPA prohibits habeas relief unless the adjudication of the claim either (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. [7] 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.' [8] It may also be contrary to established precedent 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 [Supreme Court] precedent. [9] It is an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent if the state court identifies the correct governing legal rule from [the] Court's cases but unreasonably applies it to the facts of the particular state prisoner's case. [10] AEPDA requires us to presume that the state court's findings of fact are correct unless the petitioner rebuts that presumption by clear and convincing evidence. [11]