S.Ct. 2250; R ird Circuit "failed to afford due respect to the role of the jury and the state courts of Pennsylvania”); Hardy, 132 S.Ct. at 495 (reversing the Second Circuit and stating, “[T]he deferential standard of review set out in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) does not permit a federal court to overturn a state court's decision on the question of unavailability merely because the federal court identifies additional steps that might have been taken. Under AEDPA, if the state-court decision was reasonable, it cannot be disturbed.”); Dixon, 132 S.Ct. at 27 ("Because it is not clear that the Ohio Supreme Court erred at all, much less erred so transparently that no fairminded jurist could agree with that court’s decision, the Sixth Circuit's judgment must be reversed.”); Mitts, 131 S.Ct. at 1765 (<HOLDING>); Felkner, 131 S.Ct. at 1307 ("The state
holding that the ninth circuit erred because the state appellate courts conclusion that one incorrect statement in jury instructions did not render the instructions likely to mislead the jury was not unreasonable holding that the sixth circuit erred in granting habeas relief because the state courts upholding of jury instructions and verdict forms regarding the weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors was not contrary to or  an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law citation and internal quotation marks omitted holding that the sixth circuit erred by following its own precedent rather than that of the supreme court in determining what is clearly established federal law holding that the sixth circuit erred in finding that the state courts jury instructions were contrary to clearly established federal law holding that the federal habeas courts task is to determine if the state courts decision was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the supreme court of the united states