for an act done or omitted under any alleged right, title, authority, privilege, protection, or exemption claimed under the commission, order or sanction of any foreign state, or under color thereof, the validity and effect of which depend upon the law of nations; or (5) It is necessary to bring him into court to testify or for trial. 15 . In the related context of "unreasonable application” errors, too, the Supreme Court has focused its analysis on state courts’ actual reasoning rather than hypothetical alternative lines of analysis. See Holland, 542 U.S. at 652, 124 S.Ct. 2736 ("The Sixth Circuit erred in finding the state court’s application of [federal law] unreasonable on the basis of evidence not properly before the state court.”); Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 528-29, 123 S.Ct. 2527 (<HOLDING>); see also Oswald v. Bertrand, 374 F.3d 475,
holding attorneys testimony on all work performed sufficient to support attorneys fees award even though no time records presented holding unreasonable a state courts conclusion that an attorneys performance was sufficient because the attorneys investigation was too narrow without considering separate justifications based on alternative readings of the record holding merely that the evidence was sufficient to support the award of attorneys fees holding that an attorneys bills are high evidence as to the maximum value of the attorneys services holding that equitable tolling may be available where the attorneys behavior was outrageous or the attorneys incompetence was extraordinary