Court Opinion

ID: 9416120
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 19:28:11.986973+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:46.692037
License: Public Domain

ANDERSON, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the result reached by Judge Tjoflat’s opinion, and I join all of the opin*1218ion except Part V.A.4, which I admire as erudite writing, and which I think is very probably entirely accurate and sound. However, I conclude that I need not address or resolve those complex issues. To resolve this case, I can assume, arguendo (but not decide), that Williams, Wiggins, and Rompilla1 are fully applicable, but that the state habeas court’s decision is not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law (as determined by the Supreme Court) including those cases.

. The citations for the three cases are respectively: Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000); Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003); and Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374, 125 S.Ct. 2456, 162 L.Ed.2d 360 (2005).