104 S.Ct. 2885. Further more, Garrido-Valdez must rebut the presumption of correctness accorded to the state trial court’s factual determinations of impartiality by “clear and convincing evidence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). Garrido-Valdez, however, has not presented any evidence other than the voir dire testimony of Juror No. 9 and Juror No. 13 in support of his argument that these two individuals were incapable of being impartial. Thus, in holding that “[although [the two] prospective jurors initially expressed views casting doubt on their ability to be impartial in this case, they each ultimately stated unequivocally that they could be fair,” the state appellate court did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law. See Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. at 1040, 104 S.Ct. 2885. (<HOLDING>). Ha-beas relief is not warranted on this
holding that the ambiguity in the testimony of the cited jurors who were challenged for cause was insufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness owed to the trial courts findings holding that it is the appellants burden to present a record to overcome the presumption of correctness of the trial courts findings holding that it is the duty of the appellant to overcome the presumption of the correctness of the trial courts judgment by demonstrating some reversible error holding that in appellate proceedings the decision of the trial court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error holding evidence insufficient to overcome presumption of correctness