discussed Cited "see" Stamper v. State See Gollehon v. State, 1999 MT 210, ¶¶ 50-51 , 296 Mont. 6 , ¶¶ 50- 51, 986 P.2d 395, ¶¶ 50-51 , cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1041 , 120 S.Ct. 1539 , 146 L.Ed.2d 353 (2000); Mothka v. State (1997), 281 Mont. 175, 177 , 931 P.2d 1331, 1333 ; State v. Baker (1995), 272 Mont. 273, 280-81 , 901 P.2d 54, 58-59 , cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1125 , 116 S.Ct. 940 , 133 L.Ed.2d 865 (1996). ¶14 Generally, an alleged failure to object to the introduction of evidence, to the testimony of a witness, or to prosecutorial misconduct at trial, has been deemed record-based and, therefore, appropriate for direct app…

discussed Cited "see" Ford v. Day See Gollehon v. State, 296 Mont. 6 , 986 P.2d 395, 402 (Mont.1999) (rejecting petitioner’s request to address potentially unexhausted federal claims on the basis that Montana’s statutory bar prevented review of claims not raised on direct appeal), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1041 , 120 S.Ct. 1539 , 146 L.Ed.2d 353 (2000); State v. Hanson, 296 Mont. 82 , 988 P.2d 299, 301 (Mont.1999) (explaining that Montana state courts must consistently apply the statutory bar to prevent the abuse of postconviction relief by criminal defendants).

discussed Cited "see" In Re: John W. Byrd, Jr. Movant (2×) See In re King, 190 F.3d 479, 480 (6th Cir.1999) (en banc), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1041 , 120 S.Ct. 1538 , 146 L.Ed.2d 352 (2000).

cited Cited "see" Riley v. Greene See Jurado-Gutierrez v. Greene, 190 F.3d 1135, 1146 . (10th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1041 , 120 S.Ct. 1539 , 146 L.Ed.2d 352 (2000).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." Pierrot Bejjani v. Immigration and Naturalization Service John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States See e.g., Jurado-Gutieirez v. Greene, 190 F.3d 1135 , 1148 (10th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1041 , 120 S.Ct. 1539 , 146 L.Ed.2d 352 (2000) (noting that the,determination of a statute’s temporal reach does not involve any “special agency expertise,” and reaching such determination without affording any deference to the Attorney General); Sandoval v. Reno, 166 F.3d 225, 239 (3d Cir.1999) (noting doubt that Chevron deference is appropriate in determining a statute’s effective date, but assuming arguendo that Chevron does apply, and finding under the first step that Congress express…