that the State did not “suppress!]” the latter notation, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, by pronouncing that there was no record evidence to support the argument that the evidence was “exculpatory,” necessarily concluded that the evidence was not “favorable.” See, e.g., Strickler, 527 U.S. at 281-82, 119 S.Ct. 1936 (noting that “the evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching”). In light of the AEDPA, the court finds that the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals’ determination that the record was devoid of factual support to substantiate Davis’ arguments as to the two handwritten notations must be presumed correct by this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e); Little v. Johnson, 162 F.3d 855, 862 (5th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). To rebut the presumption of correctness,
holding that a district courts rejection of an argument for an inappropriate reason was error holding that state courts in construing and interpreting state law are not bound by the decisions of federal courts holding that federal courts are bound by state interpretations of state law holding that a  2254 court was bound by the state courts rejection of the petitioners factual assertions that evidence was suppressed holding federal courts are bound by state court determinations of state law