Opinion ID: 3048863
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act governs this appeal and limits our review of the decisions of the state courts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). We may grant habeas relief only if a determination of the state court was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” id. § 2254(d)(1), or if the determination of the state court “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding,” id. § 2254(d)(2). “[A] state court acts contrary to clearly established federal law if it ‘confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of [the Supreme] Court [of the United States] and nevertheless arrives at a result different from [its] precedent.’” Smith v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 572 F.3d 1327, 1333 (11th Cir. 2009) (first and third alterations in original) (quoting Williams v. Taylor, 529 15 U.S. 362, 406, 120 S. Ct. 1495, 1519–20 (2000)). The decision of a state court involves an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law “if the state court identifies the correct governing legal rule . . . but unreasonably applies it to the facts of the particular state prisoner’s case,” Williams, 529 U.S. at 407, 120 S. Ct. at 1520, or when it “unreasonably extends, or unreasonably declines to extend, a legal principle from Supreme Court case law to a new context,” Putman v. Head, 268 F.3d 1223, 1241 (11th Cir. 2001). “[A] federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly. Rather, that application must also be unreasonable.” Williams, 529 U.S. at 411, 120 S. Ct. at 1522. “The question whether a state court errs in determining the facts is a different question from whether it errs in applying the law.” Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333, 342, 126 S. Ct. 969, 976 (2006). “Our review of findings of fact by the state court is even more deferential than under a clearly erroneous standard of review.” Stephens v. Hall, 407 F.3d 1195, 1201 (11th Cir. 2005). A different standard of review governs determinations that a claim is procedurally defaulted. “[W]hether a particular claim is subject to the doctrine of procedural default[] . . . is a mixed question of fact and law, which we review de 16 novo.” Judd v. Haley, 250 F.3d 1308, 1313 (11th Cir. 2001). Greene “must establish cause and actual prejudice to excuse [a procedural] default.” Ward v. Hall, 592 F.3d 1144, 1176 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, – U.S. –, 131 S. Ct. 647 (2010). Where a state court finds insufficient evidence to establish cause and prejudice to overcome a procedural bar, “we must presume the state court’s factual findings to be correct unless the petitioner rebuts that presumption by clear and convincing evidence.” Id. at 1177. “Clear and convincing evidence entails proof that a claim is ‘highly probable,’ a standard requiring more than a preponderance of the evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting United States v. Owens, 854 F.2d 432, 436 n.8 (11th Cir. 1998)).