466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. If the deficient performance occurred during sentencing that resulted in the imposition of the death penalty, a petitioner must show that “absent the errors, the sentencer ... would have concluded that the balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances did not warrant death.” Id. at 695. Because the Supreme Court of Virginia applied Strickland in rejecting Powell’s ineffectiveness claim, its decision was not “contrary to” clearly established federal law. Thus, review here is limited to whether the Supreme Court of Virginia applied Strickland unreasonably or made an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented. See § 2254(d)(1) & (2); see also Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 699, 122 S.Ct. 1843, 152 L.Ed.2d 914 (2002) (<HOLDING>). A. Powell first alleges that a more thorough
holding that a plaintiff must show that a statute  could never be applied in a valid manner  to prevail in a facial attack on its validity holding petitioner must show prejudice to prevail on due process claim holding petitioner has the burden of proof under the strickland test holding that to prevail under  2254 a petitioner must show that the state court applied strickland to the facts of his case in an objectively unreasonable manner holding that a plaintiff must show his belief was objectively reasonable in light of the facts and record presented