discussed Cited "see, e.g." James v. Herbert Second, the state court ruling did not result in “a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1) (emphasis added); see also Gilchrist v. O’Keefe, 260 F.3d 87, 93 (2d Cir.2001) (defining “clearly established Federal law” as “ ‘the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of [the Supreme Court’s] decisions as of the time of the relevant state-court decision’ ”) (quoting Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 , 146 L.Ed.2d …