not apply.’ ” Holloway v. Horn, 355 F.3d 707, 718 (3d Cir.2004) (quoting Appel v. Horn, 250 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir.2001)). AEDPA has changed the procedural framework for deference in three ways. First, AEDPA now requires federal courts to defer to state court legal determinations, whereas federal courts used to review state legal determinations de novo. See, e.g., Ahmad v. Redman, 782 F.2d 409, 412 (3d Cir.1986). Second, the habeas statute no longer explicitly conditions federal deference to state court factual findings on whether the state court held a hearing. See Mendiola v. Schomig, 224 F.3d 589, 592-93 (7th Cir.2000). Third, the statute no longer contains the eight prerequisites to deference that appeared in the superseded §§ 2254(d)(1)-(8). See Valdez v. Cockrell, 274 F.3d at 951 (<HOLDING>); but see Valdez v. Cockrell, 274 F.3d at 966
holding evidence insufficient to overcome presumption of correctness holding that a full and fair hearing is not a precondition to according 2254els presumption of correctness to a state habeas courts findings of fact holding that because there was no factual dispute between the parties the presumption of correctness is not relevant holding that agency decisions enjoy a presumption of correctness holding that it is the appellants burden to present a record to overcome the presumption of correctness of the trial courts findings