unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). The state court made no factual findings in determining that amended Section 2933.6 does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. Therefore, the state court’s determination was a legal conclusion governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), not a factual determination governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). See Lopez v. Smith, — U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 1, 5, 190 L.Ed.2d 1 (2014) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. ** This disposition is not
holding that we review legal conclusions of the court of federal claims de novo holding that district court properly refused to rely on affidavits to the extent that they contained only legal conclusions holding appellate court reviews legal conclusions de novo holding that a court is not required to accept legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from the facts alleged holding that legal conclusions are properly analyzed under  2254d1 not  2254d2