Opinion ID: 78178
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Contrary to, or an Unreasonable Application of, Requirement

Text: It is well established in our circuit that a state court decision can be contrary to clearly established federal law if either (1) the state court applied a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth by Supreme Court case law, or (2) when faced with materially indistinguishable facts, the state court arrived at a result different from that reached in a Supreme Court case. Putman, 268 F.3d at 1241. As regards the unreasonable application prong, we have held that [a] state court conducts an `unreasonable application' of clearly established federal law if it identifies the correct legal rule from Supreme Court case law but unreasonably applies that rule to the facts of the petitioner's case ... [or] a state court unreasonably extends, or unreasonably declines to extend, a legal principle from Supreme Court case law to a new context. Id.