Opinion ID: 162315
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standards or review

Text: 5 Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Knighton will be entitled to habeas relief only if he can establish that the state courts' resolution of his claims was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court precedent, or 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). We presume correct any state-court factual finding, absent clear and convincing proof to the contrary. See id., § 2254(e)(1). If, instead, the state courts did not address Knighton's habeas claim's merit, we will review the district court's legal determinations de novo, and any factual finding for clear error. See, e.g., Romano v. Gibson, 278 F.3d 1145, 1150 (10th Cir.2002).