Opinion ID: 78421
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: Following a district court's denial of a habeas petition, this Court reviews questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact de novo and findings of fact for clear error. Nyland v. Moore, 216 F.3d 1264, 1266 (11th Cir.2000) (per curiam). Carroll filed his federal habeas petition after April 24, 1996, and thus this case is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), which establishes a highly deferential standard for reviewing state court judgments. Parker v. Sec'y for Dep't of Corr., 331 F.3d 764, 768 (11th Cir.2003). Under AEDPA, a federal court shall not grant habeas relief on claims that were previously adjudicated in state court unless the state court's decision was (1) contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) ... 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).