manufacturing, distributing or dispensing or possessing with intent to manufacture, distribute or dispense or by bringing into the commonwealth a net weight of fourteen grams or more ... or any mixture [that] is: (3) One hundred grams or more, but less than two hundred grams, be punished by a term of imprisonment for not less than ten nor more than twenty years.... MassGen.L. ch. 94C, § 32E(b)(3). 2 . The fact that the Supreme Judicial Court denied further appellate review of Nolasco’s case is of no consequence to this analysis since Nolasco had a full and fair opportunity to present his Fourth Amendment claims before both the Superior Court and the Appeals Court. See Bastardo v. Marshall, No. Civ. A. 93-40099-NMG, 1997 WL 667785, at *2 (D.Mass. Oct. 16, 1997) (Gorton, J.)
holding that stone applies even though state habeas court erroneously held that petitioners fourth amendment claim had been adjudicated on direct review holding that when a state court adjudication is contrary to clearly established supreme court precedent this court must review de novo whether petitioner is entitled to habeas relief holding that the petitioner who was denied further appellate review by the supreme judicial court had a full and fair opportunity to litigate his fourth amendment claim in the state trial court and appeals court and thus stone precluded federal habeas relief holding that trial court was required to give full effect to supreme courts judgment and that by failing to do so the trial court abused its discretion holding that this court may not review family court determinations that were decided after providing plaintiff a full and fair opportunity to litigate those issues