SMITH

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Haliburton v. Sec'y FOR THE Dep't OF Corr., 342 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2003)
  …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 v. Head, 268 F. 3d 1223, 1241 (11th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 870, 123 S.Ct. 278, 154 L.Ed.2d 119 (2002). Additionally, “[a] state court’s decision [is] an ‘unreasonable application’ of federal law if it identifies the correct legal rule from Supreme Court case law, but applies that rule in an unreasonable manner…
• Cayce Collins Moore v. Donal Campbell, 344 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2003)
  …We, however, note that Proffitt and Hall were decided before Congress enacted the AEDPA which provides for a far more deferential federal review of state court decisions. See Putman v. Head, 268 F. 3d 1223, 1247 n. 23 (11th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 870, 123 S.Ct. 278, 154 L.Ed.2d 119 (2002). We now can only interfere with the state court’s decision if it is contrary to or applies clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States in an "objectively unreasonabl…
• Elder v. Dixon (N.D. Fla. 2024)
  …urt's duty to again determine the reasonableness of counsel's actions, but “to determine whether the state habeas court was objectively reasonable in its Strickland inquiry." Putnam v. Head, 268 F.3d 1223, 1244, n. 17 (11th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 870 (2002). Here, the circuit court's conclusion that Alldredge's conduct was not ineffective under Strickland was objectively reasonable. Thus, Elder is not entitled to relief on Ground Three. 3. Ground Four: IATC for Failing to File a Motion in Limin…