Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)-(2). A state court’s decision is “contrary” to clearly established federal law if the state court “reached a result opposite to that reached by the Supreme Court on materially indistinguishable facts.” Virsnieks v. Smith, 521 F.3d 707, 713 (7th Cir.2008). A state court’s decision is an “unreasonable application” of federal law if it identified the proper legal principle from Supreme Court precedent but unreasonably applied that principle to the facts of the petitioner’s case. Rompilla v. Beard, 545 S.Ct. 1482, 84 L.Ed.2d 486 (1985) (<HOLDING>); and Rogers v. United States, 422 U.S. 35,
holding that a defendant did not waive his right to be present at an ex parte encounter between the judge and juror because he was not present at the time of the communication and therefore had no opportunity to object when the error was committed holding that treating a defendants failure to appear as a waiver not only of the right to be present but of the right to have a hearing on the motion was error holding that defendant acquiesced to counsels waiver of right to be present at bench conference where trial judge advised everyone in courtroom including defendant about the topic of the bench conference and defendant raised no objection to his absence holding that the failure by a criminal defendant to invoke his right to be present  at a conference which he knows is taking place between the judge and a juror in chambers constitutes a valid waiver of that right holding that the prior conviction was valid for calculation of the defendants criminal history because his waiver of the right to counsel was valid