WELCH

v.

CAIN, WARDEN, ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Parker v. Head, 244 F.3d 831 (11th Cir. 2001)
  …y applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner’s case. 120 S.Ct. at 1523. The Supreme Court rejected the restrictive “reasonable jurist” standard adopted by this Court in Neelley v. Nagle, 138 F. 3d 917, 924-25 (11th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1075, 119 S.Ct. 811, 142 L.Ed.2d 671 (1999), and concluded that federal habeas relief would be available under the “unreasonable application” standard only if the state court’s application of clearly established federal law was “objectively unreasonable.…
• Spivey v. Head, 207 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 2000)
  …l habeas corpus procedures for capital cases, codified at 28 U.S.C. §§ 2261-66, do not apply because they require a state to "opt in” to them by meeting certain requirements, see Neelley v. Nagle, 138 F. 3d 917, 921-22 (11th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1075, 119 S.Ct. 811, 142 L.Ed.2d 671 (1999) (mem.), and the state here has not asserted that it opted in by meeting these requirements. . In Claim II, Spivey contends that the prosecutor’s comments inflamed the community against him and constitute miscon…
• High v. Head, 209 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2000)
  …l habeas corpus procedures for capital cases, codified at 28 U.S.C. §§ 2261-66, do not apply because they require a state to "opt in” to them by meeting certain requirements, see Neelley v. Nagle, 138 F. 3d 917, 921-22 (11th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1075, 119 S.Ct. 811, 142 L.Ed.2d 671 (1999) (mem.), and the state here has not asserted that it opted in by meeting these requirements. . The trial transcript reveals the following colloquy between High’s trial attorney, John Ruffin, Jr., and GBI agent…