that joint custody be awarded. The parties withdrew their fault-based complaints for divorce prior to trial and agreed to an irreconcilable differences divorce. April and Shane agreed to submit the issues of custody and child support to the chancellor for his determination. While neither Shane nor April specifically requested joint custody, their submission of the issue of custody to the chancellor opened the door for the chancellor to award joint custody if he found it to be in the best interests of the children. See Miss.Code Ann. § 93-5-24(2) (Rev.2004) (“Joint custody may be awarded where irreconcilable differences is the ground for divorce, in the discretion of the court, upon application of both parents.”); see also Crider v. Crider, 904 So.2d 142, 148(¶ 15) (Miss.2005) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 47. Shane’s and April’s consent to allow
holding that we review for clear error a district courts factual determination as to whether prior cases were consolidated for sentencing under ussg  4a12a2 and that we give the court due deference in its application of the guidelines to that determination recognizing that a state courts determination is not an unreasonable application of law merely because it is erroneous holding that the determination of whether there was joint access and control for actual authority is a fact question reviewed under the plainerror standard but a determination of whether the government reasonably relied on a third partys consent is a question of law to be reviewed de novo holding that when parties consent in writing to the courts determination of custody they are consenting and agreeing to that determination satisfying the statutory requirement of a joint application holding that the state courts determination that the petitioner could not show prejudice because he did not allege that the witness was available to testify was a reasonable application of federal law to the facts of the case