New Mexico, Wyoming, and Utah are eminently reasonable individuals and that each and every one of them is attempting to do justice in all cases that come before them. Nevertheless, reasonable judges make mistakes sometimes, even big, unreasonable mistakes. In those situations, the Supreme Court has not hesitated to grant habeas relief. See, e.g., Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman, 550 U.S. 233, 259, 127 S.Ct. 1654, 167 L.Ed.2d 585 (2007) (concluding Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ resolution of petitioner’s claim was not a reasonable application of Supreme Court precedent); Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231, 265, 125 S.Ct. 2317, 162 L.Ed.2d 196 (2005) (concluding Texas state court factual finding was unreasonable); Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 527, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003) (<HOLDING>). 35 . In his dissent, Judge O'Brien asserts
holding that a court of appeals may presume reasonable a district courts proper application of the sentencing guidelines holding that  2254ds unreasonable application clause was not met upon finding that the state courts silent adjudication of one element of the petitioners claim was objectively reasonable without determining whether its silent resolution of the second element was unreasonable holding that copyright owners claim was not so objectively unreasonable as to justify an award holding that the maryland court of appeals application of stricklands governing legal principles was objectively unreasonable holding under similar circumstances that the california court of appeals finding of no pretext was unreasonable