i.e., a rule dictated by precedent (Strickland) existing at the time Frazer’s conviction became final. When, as here, a Supreme Court case provides the source of an “old” Teague rule, that “old” rule, by definition, “will constitute clearly established Federal law ... under” AEDPA. Williams, 529 U.S. at 412, 120 S.Ct. 1495 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In the case at hand, the State does not even contend that Flores-Ortega announced a new rule under Teag-ue. A survey of the legal landscape as it existed when Frazer’s conviction and sentence became final conclusively demonstrates that it did not. For, as explained above, and by the Supreme Court itself in Flores-Ortega, Strickland dictated Flores-Ortega. See also Lewis v. Johnson, 359 F.3d 646, 655 (3d Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); Hudson v. Hunt, 235 F.3d 892, 896 (4th
holding the record did not contain enough facts to determine whether the statute was constitutional as applied to the particular facts and circumstances of the case holding that floresortegas application of the strickland standard was dictated by precedent and merely clarified the law as is applied to the particular facts of that case holding that although the board set forth the appropriate standard of review at the outset of its decision in this case whether the bia properly applied that standard was a question of law holding that but for standard applied to retaliation case brought under texas law holding that in federal cases partys right to assert a privilege is dictated by federal law