district court correctly concluded, Fisher has not shown that the state court findings are unreasonable, unsupported, or otherwise erroneous. Indeed, they are supported by competent evidence. Furthermore, the record is devoid of any indication that the state court treated the MAR in a haphazard or careless fashion and, on the contrary, it appears that Fisher was afforded much latitude in developing his claims and the evidentiary bases behind them. Finally, to the extent the state court’s order, whether from the bench or in writing, could be considered summary in nature, we have consistently rejected such attempts to circumvent § 2254’s requirement that we accord deference to the state court’s application of clearly established law to the facts found. See e.g., Weeks, 176 F.3d at 259 (<HOLDING>); Wright v. Angelone, 151 F.3d 151, 157 (4th
holding that the brecht standard applies on federal collateral review even after passage of the aedpa holding that aedpa limits a federal habeas court to the record before the state court where a claim has been adjudicated on the merits by the state court holding that the aedpa standard of review applies even where the state court has given no indication of how it reached its decision holding that a district court has the authority to raise the aedpa statute of limitations on its own motion holding that aedpa only applies where the state court adjudicated the constitutional issue on the merits