Opinion ID: 28185
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Habeas review under the AEDPA.

Text: 16 To prevail on a federal habeas application, a petitioner must make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a demonstration that ... includes showing that reasonable jurists could debate whether ... the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Moore v. Johnson, 225 F.3d 495, 500 (5th Cir.2000), quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). 17 In assessing whether a petitioner has demonstrated a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, the deference scheme laid out in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) applies. See Moore, 225 F.3d at 501. 18 An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim — 19 (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 20 (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. 21 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Under that scheme, pure questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact are reviewed under § 2254(d)(1) and questions of fact are reviewed under § 2254(d)(2). See 225 F.3d at 501. The objective standard of Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000) is used in these analyses. 22 As a result, we must defer to the state court unless its decision was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). A decision is contrary to clearly established Federal law if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the Supreme Court] on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than [the] Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts. Williams v. Taylor, [529 U.S. 362, 412-13, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389] (2000). Under §§ 2254(d)(1)'s unreasonable application language, a writ may issue if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from [the] Court's decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner's case. Williams, [529 U.S. at 413, 120 S.Ct. 1495]. Factual findings are presumed to be correct, see § 2254(e)(1), and we will give deference to the state court's decision unless it was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. Id. §§ 2254(d)(2). 23 Moore, 225 F.3d at 501 (citing Hill v. Johnson, 210 F.3d 481, 484-85 (5th Cir.2000)). 24