Opinion ID: 3063660
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: We review de novo the denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. McNair v. Campbell, 416 F.3d 1291, 1297 (11th Cir. 2005). A petitioner is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus if the state court reached a decision that was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). A decision is “contrary to” clearly established federal law if either the state court reached a conclusion opposite to that reached by Supreme Court on a question of law or the state court was presented with facts that are “materially indistinguishable” from relevant Supreme 6 Court precedent, but arrived at a contrary result. Putman v. Head, 168 F.3d 1223, 1241 (11th Cir. 2001). A state court makes an “unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law if the court “identifies the correct legal rule from Supreme Court case law but unreasonably applies that rule to the facts of the petitioner’s case.” Id. We presume that the findings of fact by the state court are correct unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. 28 U.S.C. 2254(e)(1).