phase in light of all the surrounding circumstances. Hooks, 19 P.3d at 312 nn. 33 & 36, 314 n. 51, 317 n. 57, 318 n. 68. Whether the OCCA majority undertook to analyze Hooks’s claim in a manner consistent with Lowenfield cannot be definitively determined from the opinion. Although the opinion of the OCCA cites to Lowenfield in two footnotes, it does so only to briefly note (1) a quick return of a verdict following an Allen charge can indicate coercion, (2) an instruction to a deadlocked jury not to surrender honestly held beliefs reduces coercion, and (3) a jury instruction as to the consequences of failing to reach unanimity reduces coercion. Hooks, 19 P.3d at 310 & n. 24; Id. at 310 n. 25. But cf. Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8, 123 S.Ct. 362, 154 L.Ed.2d 263 (2002) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). Nowhere does the OCCA indicate it is
holding that evidence contrary to an administrators decision does not make the decision arbitrary and capricious so long as a reasonable basis appears for the decision holding aedpas contrary to clause does not require citation of our cases indeed it does not even require awareness of our eases so long as neither the reasoning nor the result of the statecourt decision contradicts them holding that failure to cite federal law does not mean that state court decision was contrary to established federal law state court need not even be aware of supreme court precedents so long as neither the reasoning nor the result of the statecourt decision contradicts them holding that to pass muster under the contrary to prong a state court need not cite relevant supreme court precedent or even be aware of relevant cases so long as neither the reasoning nor the result of the statecourt decision contradicts them recognizing that a failure to cite supreme court decisions does not itself suggest a state court decision is contrary to such precedents   so long as neither the reasoning nor the result of the statecourt decision contradicts them 