When a state court is silent with respect to a habeas corpus petitioner’s claim, that claim has not been “adjudicated on the merits” for purposes of § 2254(d). See Hough v. Anderson, 272 F.3d 878, 904 n. 13 (7th Cir.2001) (reviewing the petitioner’s claim de novo because “[t]he Supreme Court of Indiana did not address this argument specifically in its opinion”). As a practical matter, a federal court cannot apply the deferential standard provided by § 2254(d) in the absence of any state court decision on the issue. See Fortini v. Murphy, 257 F.3d 39, 47 (1st Cir.2001) (“AED-PA imposes a requirement of deference to state court decisions, but we can hardly defer to the state court on an issue that the state court did not address.”); Hogan v. Gibson, 197 F.3d 1297, 1306 (10th Cir. 1999) (<HOLDING>). As we said in Braun, “[accordingly, we shall
holding that because the state court made no findings as to the merits of the petitioners claim it is axiomatic that there are no findings to which we can give deference and thus  2254d does not apply holding the findings of fact required to support an alimony award are sufficient if findings of fact have been made on the ultimate facts at issue in the case and the findings of fact show the trial court properly applied the law in the case holding that the trial courts putting its findings on the record at the conclusion of the states case was sufficient to satisfy  152538 because that section does not specifically limit the time within which the court must state the findings holding that we review factual findings underlying a decision to apply a sentencing enhancement for clear error and give due deference to the district courts application of the guidelines to the facts holding that a reviewing court has the power to reject the findings and conclusions of the trial court where the findings are not supported by the evidence