Cluster 785271

See Crater v. Galaza, 491 F.3d 1119, 1131 (9th Cir. 2007) (stating the Supreme Court precedent reveals “three circumstances in which an appearance of bias—as opposed to evidence of actual bias—necessitates recusal”); Jones v. Luebbers, 359 F.3d 1005, 1012 (8th Cir. 2004) (“[C]learly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, recognizes not only actual bias, but also the appearance of bias, as grounds for disqualification”) (quotation an…

“Finally, a state court decision involves an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings only if it is shown that the state court’s presumptively correct factual findings do not enjoy support in the record.” Jones v. Luebbers, 359 F.3d 1005, 1011 (8th Cir. 2004) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

A state court decision is “contrary to” clearly established Supreme Court precedent “if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the United States Williams v. Supreme] Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than [the Taylor United States Supreme] Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts.” , 529 U.S. 362, 412-13 (2000). “[A] state court decision involves an unreasonable determination of the facts…

“Finally, a state court decision involves an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings only if it is shown that the state court’s presumptively correct factual findings do not enjoy support in the record.” Jones v. Luebbers, 359 F.3d 1005, 1011 (8th Cir. 2004) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

“Finally, a state court decision involves an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings only if it is shown that the state court’s presumptively correct factual findings do not enjoy support in the record.” Jones v. Luebbers, 359 F.3d 1005, 1011 (8th Cir. 2004) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

Finally, a state court decision involves “an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in state court proceedings” only if “it is shown that the state court’s presumptively correct factual findings do not enjoy support in the record.” Jones v. Luebbers, 359 F.3d 1005, 1011 (8th Cir. 2004).

“Finally, a state court decision involves an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings only if it is shown that the state court’s presumptively correct factual findings do not enjoy support in the record.” Jones v. Luebbers, 359 F.3d 1005, 1011 (8th Cir. 2004) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

“Finally, a state court decision involves an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings only if it is shown that the state court’s presumptively correct factual findings do not enjoy support in the record.” Jones v. Luebbers, 359 F.3d 1005, 1011 (8th Cir. 2004) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

“Finally, a state court decision involves an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings only if it is shown that the state court’s presumptively correct factual findings do not enjoy support in the record.” Jones v. Luebbers, 359 F.3d 1005, 1011 (8th Cir. 2004) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333, 338-39 (2006) (noting that state court factual findings are pres…

A state court decision is “contrary to” clearly established Supreme Court precedent “if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the United States Supreme] Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than [the United States Supreme] Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412-13 (2000). “[A] state court decision involves an unreasonable determination of the facts …

“Finally, a state court decision involves an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings only if it is shown that the state courts presumptively correct factual findings do not enjoy support in the record.” Jones v. Luebbers, 359 F.3d 1005, 1011 (8th Cir. 2004) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333, 338-39 (2006) (noting that state court factual findings are presum…

A state court decision is “contrary to” clearly established Supreme Court precedent “if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the United States Supreme] Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than [the United States Supreme] Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412-13 (2000). “[A] state court decision involves an unreasonable determination of the facts …

A state court decision is “contrary to” clearly established Supreme Court precedent “if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the United States Supreme] Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than [the United States Supreme] Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412-13 (2000). “[A] state court decision involves an unreasonable determination of the facts …

Under subsection (2), “A state court decision involves ‘an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in state court proceedings’ only if it is shown that the state court’s presumptively correct factual findings do not enjoy support in the record.” Id. at 508 (quoting Jones v. Luebbers, 359 F.3d 1005, 1011 (8th Cir. 2004)).

“Finally, a state court decision involves an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in state court proceedings only if it is shown that the state court’s presumptively correct factual findings do not enjoy support in the record.” Jones v. Luebbers, 359 F.3d 1005, 1011 (8th Cir. 2004) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

Under subsection (2), a “state court decision involves ‘an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings’ only if it is shown that the state court’s presumptively correct factual findings do not enjoy support in the record.” Jones v. Luebbers, 359 F.3d 1005, 1011 (8th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted).

“Finally, a state court decision involves an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in state court proceedings only if it is shown that the state court’s presumptively correct factual findings do not enjoy support in the record.” Jones v. Luebbers, 359 F.3d 1005, 1011 (8th Cir. 2004) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

Under subsection (2), a “state court decision involves ‘an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings’ only if it is shown that the state court’s presumptively correct factual findings do not enjoy support in the record.” Jones v. Luebbers, 359 F.3d 1005, 1011 (8th Cir. 2004) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(2)).

“Finally, a state court decision involves an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings only if it is shown that the state court’s presumptively correct factual findings do not enjoy support in the record.” Jones v. Luebbers, 359 F.3d 1005, 1011 (8th Cir. 2004) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

A state court decision is “contrary to” clearly established Supreme Court precedent “if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the United States Supreme] Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than [the United States Supreme] Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412-13 (2000). “[A] state court decision involves an unreasonable determination of the facts …

“Finally, a state court decision involves an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings only if it is shown that the state court’s presumptively correct factual findings do not enjoy support in the record.” Jones v. Luebbers, 359 F.3d 1005, 1011 (8th Cir. 2004) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

Finally, a state court decision is based on an unreasonable determination of the facts “only if it is shown that the state court’s presumptively correct factual findings do not enjoy support in the record.” Jones v. Luebbers, 359 F.3d 1005, 1111 (8th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted).

“Finally, a state court decision involves ‘an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in state court proceedings,’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(2), only if it is shown that the state court’s presumptively correct factual findings do not enjoy support in the record.” Jones v. Luebbers, 359 F.3d 1005, 1011 (8th Cir. 2004) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (e)(1); Boyd v. Minnesota, 274 F.3d 497 , 501 n. 4 (8th Cir. 2004)).

A state court decision is “contrary to” clearly established Supreme Court precedent “if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the United States Supreme] Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than [the United States Supreme] Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412-13 (2000). “[A] state court decision involves an unreasonable determination of the facts …

Finally, a state court decision is based on an unreasonable determination of the facts “only if it is shown that the state court’s presumptively correct factual findings do not enjoy support in the record.” Jones v. Luebbers, 359 F.3d 1005, 1111 (8th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted).

Additionally, Petitioner’s two claims involving the Double Jeopardy Clause appear to be essentially the same claim. of materially indistinguishable facts.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412-13 (2000). “[A] state court decision involves an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings only if it is shown that the state court’s presumptively correct factual findings do not enjoy support in the record.” Jones v. Lu…

Finally, a state court decision is based on an unreasonable determination of the facts “only if it is shown that the state court’s presumptively correct factual findings do not enjoy support in the record.” Jones v. Luebbers, 359 F.3d 1005, 1111 (8th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted).

Finally, a state court decision is based on an unreasonable determination of the facts “only if it is shown that the state court’s presumptively correct factual findings do not enjoy support in the record.” Jones v. Luebbers, 359 F.3d 1005, 1111 (8th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted).

A state court decision is “contrary to” clearly established Supreme Court precedent “if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the United States Supreme] Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than [the United States Supreme] Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412-13 (2000). “[A] state court decision involves an unreasonable determination of the facts …

“Finally, a state court decision involves an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings only if it is shown that the state court’s presumptively correct factual findings do not enjoy support in the record.” Jones v. Luebbers, 359 F.3d 1005, 1011 (8th Cir. 2004) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333, 338-39 (2006) (noting that state court factual findings are pres…

“Finally, a state court decision involves an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings only if it is shown that the state court’s presumptively correct factual findings do not enjoy support in the record.” Jones v. Luebbers, 359 F.3d 1005, 1011 (8th Cir. 2004) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333, 338-39 (2006) (noting that state court factual findings are pres…

“Finally, a state court decision involves an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings only if it is shown that the state court’s presumptively correct factual findings do not enjoy support in the record.” Jones v. Luebbers, 359 F.3d 1005, 1011 (8th Cir. 2004) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333, 338-39 (2006) (noting that state court factual findings are pres…

A state court decision is “contrary to” clearly established Supreme Court precedent “if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the United States Supreme] Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than [the United States Supreme] Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts.” Williams v. Taylor, 529, 412-13 (2000). “[A] state court decision involves an unreasonable determination of the facts in light …

As the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained, “ ‘[A] state court decision involves “an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in state court proceedings” only if it is shown that the state court’s presumptively correct factual findings do not enjoy support in the record.’ ” Worthington v. Roper, 631 F.3d 487, 508 (8th Cir.2011) (quoting Jones v. Luebbers, 359 F.3d 1005, 1011 (8th Cir.2004), with citation omitted). c.

A state court's determination of facts is unreasonable only if "it is shown that the state court's presumptively correct factual findings do not enjoy support in the record." Palmer v. Clarke, 408 F.3d 423 , 429 (8th Cir.2005) (quoting Jones v. Luebbers, 359 F.3d 1005, 1011 (8th Cir. 2004)). a.

In Jones v. Luebbers, 359 F.3d 1005, 1008-09 (8th Cir.2004), the Eighth Circuit considered Jones’s AEDPA habeas petition, in which Jones claimed that he had been denied a fair trial because of judicial bias, premised on the presiding judge’s preexisting and ongoing animosity toward the public defender.

Similarly, in Jones v. Luebbers, the court declined to reverse the state court’s denial of habeas relief where the judge engaged in an ongoing, hostile dispute with defense counsel. 359 F.3d 1005, 1014-15 (8th Cir.2004).

Jones v. Luebbers, 359 F.3d 1005, 1013 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1027 , 125 S.Ct. 670 , 160 L.Ed.2d 507 (2004) (quoting Dyas v. Lockhart, 705 F.2d 993, 996-97 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 982 , 104 S.Ct. 424 , 78 L.Ed.2d 359 (1983)).

The Eighth Circuit's opinion in Jones v. Luebbers, 359 F.3d 1005, 1012-13 (8th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1027 (2004), is particularly illuminating.

His desire to vindicate his name directed his actions and clouded his reasoning; the judge “ ‘bec[ame] personally embroiled with the petitioner.’ ” Jones v. Luebbers, 359 F.3d 1005, 1014 (8th Cir.2004) (quoting Offutt, 348 U.S. at 17 , 75 S.Ct. 11 ). 8 Mr. Harrison did not receive a trial by a judge free from actual bias.

His desire to vindicate his name directed his actions and clouded his reasoning; the judge “ ’bec[ame] personally embroiled with the petitioner.’ ” Jones v. Luebbers, 359 F.3d 1005, 1014 (8th Cir. 2004) (quoting Offutt, 348 U.S. at 17 ).8 8 Although Judge Redwine’s actions with respect to the change- of-judge motion are sufficient to establish bias, we note that, prior to trial, Judge Redwine did render two evidentiary rulings that involved some of the evidence elicited at t…

Ryan v. Clarke, 387 F.3d 785, 790 (8th Cir.2004) (quoting Jones v. Luebbers, 359 F.3d 1005, 1011 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 670 , 160 L.Ed.2d 507 (2004)).

Ryan v. Clarke, 387 F.3d 785 , *429 790 (8th Cir.2004) (quoting Jones v. Luebbers, 359 F.3d 1005, 1011 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 670 , 160 L.Ed.2d 507 (2004)).

Finally, a state court decision involves “air unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings” only if it is shown that the state court’s presumptively correct factual findings are rebutted by “clear and convincing evidence” and do not enjoy support in the record. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (e)(1); Jones v. Luebbers, 359 F.3d 1005, 1011 (8th Cir.2004), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 670 , 160 L.Ed.2d 507 (2004).

Tumey, 273 U.S. at 532 ; Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 47 (1975); Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488, 501 (1974); see Tezak v. United States, 256 F.3d 702, 718 (7th Cir. 2001); Del Vecchio v. Illinois Dep’t of Corr., 31 F.3d 1363, 1375 (7th Cir. 1994) (en banc); Jones v. Luebbers, 359 F.3d 1005, 1013-14 (8th Cir. 2004).

Tum ey, 273 U.S. at 532 , 47 S.Ct. 437 ; Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 47 , 95 S.Ct. 1456 , 43 L.Ed.2d 712 (1975); Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488, 501 , 94 S.Ct. 2697 , 41 L.Ed.2d 897 (1974); see Tezak v. United States, 256 F.3d 702, 718 (7th Cir.2001); Del Vecchio v. Illinois Dep’t of Corr., 31 F.3d 1363, 1375 (7th Cir.1994) (en banc); Jones v. Luebbers, 359 F.3d 1005, 1013-14 (8th Cir.2004).

Jones v. Luebbers, 359 F.3d 1005, 1011 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 670 , — L.Ed.2d. -, No. 04-6756, 2004 WL 2330707 (Dec. 6, 2004).

Jones v. Luebbers, 359 F.3d 1005, 1011 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, No. 04-6756, 2004 WL 2330707 (Dec. 6, 2004).

Jones v. Luebbers, 359 F.3d 1005, 1011 (8th Cir.2004).

Jones v. Luebbers, 359 F.3d 1005, 1011 (8th Cir. 2004).