Opinion ID: 617036
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Additional Mitigating Evidence

Text: The state habeas court ruled that Schad's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing lacked merit because he was unable to present any significant mitigating evidence. Although Schad sought to present such evidence in the district court, the Supreme Court has now ruled that when a state court has decided an issue on the merits, the federal courts may not consider additional evidence. Cullen v. Pinholster, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 1388, 1398, 179 L.Ed.2d 557 (2011) ([R]eview under § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits.). It has vacated and remanded this case to us for reconsideration. Ryan v. Schad, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 2092, 179 L.Ed.2d 886 (2011). Accordingly the district court's denial of this claim must be affirmed.