Opinion ID: 68623
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: This court reviews the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo, “applying the same standard of review to the state court’s decision as the district court.” See Gomez v. Quarterman, 529 F.3d 322, 327 (5th Cir. 2008) (quotations omitted), cert. denied 129 S. Ct. 628 (2008). “A factual finding is not clearly erroneous if it is plausible in light of the record as a whole.” United States v. London, 568 F.3d 553, 562 (5th Cir. 2009) (quotations omitted). In a habeas proceeding, we will “‘not grant relief on any claim adjudicated on the merits by a state court unless the state decision was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court, or if the state court’s determination of facts was unreasonable in light of the evidence.”’ Id. (quoting Thompson v. Cain, 161 F.3d 802, 805 (5th Cir. 1998) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d))). The “state court’s factual findings are presumed to be correct unless contravened by clear and convincing evidence.” Moody v. Quarterman, 476 F.3d 260, 267 (5th Cir. 2007) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1)). This presumption of correctness applies also to unarticulated findings necessary to the state court’s conclusions of mixed law and fact. Valdez v. Cockrell, 274 F.3d 941, 948 n.11 (5th Cir. 2001).