discussed Cited "see" Williams v. King See Williams v. Pryor, 378 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir.2004) (“Williams IV”), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1152 , 125 S.Ct. 1335 , 161 L.Ed.2d 115 (2005). 97 The majority first held that the Supreme Court’s intervening decision in Lawrence v. Texas did not recognize a fundamental right to sexual privacy: [W]e decline to extrapolate from Lawrence and its dicta a right to sexual privacy triggering strict scrutiny.

discussed Cited "see, e.g." Muth, Allen A. v. Frank, Matthew J. See, e.g., Williams v. Attorney Gen. of Ala., 378 F.3d 1232, 1236 (11th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 1335 (2005); D.L.S. v. Utah, 374 F.3d 971, 975 (10th Cir. 2004); Anderson v. Morrow, 371 F.3d 1027 , 1034 n.4 (9th Cir. 2004). 6 No. 03-3984 On October 3, 2003, the district court denied Muth’s peti- tion.

discussed Cited "see, e.g." Allen A. Muth v. Matthew J. Frank, Secretary (2×) See, e.g., Williams v. Attorney Gen. of Ala., 378 F.3d 1232, 1236 (11th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1335 , 161 L.Ed.2d 115 (2005); D.L.S. v. Utah, 374 F.3d 971, 975 (10th Cir.2004); Anderson v. Morrow, 371 F.3d 1027 , 1034 n. 4 (9th Cir.2004). .If a state court specifically identifies a claim it must identify and review the correct claim.