decision was merely incorrect. See Price v. Vincent, 538 U.S. 634, 641, 123 S.Ct. 1848, 155 L.Ed.2d 877 (2003) (“[I]t is the habeas applicant’s burden to show that the state court applied that case to the facts of his case in an objectively unreasonable manner.”); Woodford, 537 U.S. at 25, 123 S.Ct. 357; Penny, 532 U.S. at 793, 121 S.Ct. 1910; Williams, 529 U.S. at 409-11, 120 S.Ct. 1495; Bell, 535 U.S. at 694, 122 S.Ct. 1843. Moreover, it is the ultimate decision or conclusion reached by the state court that is reviewed, and not the quality of the opinion. See Pondexter v. Dretke, 346 F.3d 142, 148 (5th Cir.2003) (question before federal habeas court is whether ultimate conclusion of state court was objectively reasonable); Neal v. Puckett, 286 F.3d 230, 246 (5th Cir.2002) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). The AEDPA imposes the burden of obtaining an
holding that an appellate court can review a district courts decision to remand when that decision rests upon a ground not authorized by statute holding that federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review a final state court decision in a particular case holding  2254d authorizes federal court to review state courts decision only and not explanation of decision holding that a party losing in state court may not seek what would amount to appellate review of that decision in federal court based on the claim that the decision violates the losers federal rights holding that the ninth circuits decision exceeded the limits imposed on federal habeas review by 28 usc  2254d