Opinion ID: 2832196
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: We review de novo a district court’s denial of a § 2254 habeas petition. Hurles v. Ryan, 752 F.3d 768, 777 (9th Cir. 2014). A petitioner is entitled to habeas relief under AEDPA only if the state court’s decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court,” or if it was based an “unreasonable determination of the facts.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 407–09 (2000). Here, Creech challenges his convictions and sentence under AEDPA’s “contrary to” and “unreasonable application” prongs. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). We analyze the court of appeal’s decision because it is the last reasoned state court decision. See Van Lynn v. Farmon, 347 F.3d 735, 738 (9th Cir. 2003).