factual findings by the state courts are subject to a presumption of correctness, rebuttable only by clear and convincing evidence.” Cook v. McKune, 323 F.3d 825, 831 (10th Cir.2003). Mr. Gutierrez argues that the New Mexico state courts did not address his ineffective assistance of counsel claims because the state courts summarily denied them without discussion. In Aycox v. Lytle, 196 F.3d 1174 (10th Cir.1999), however, we pointed out that even where the state court had issued a summary order of dismissal which faded to discuss the federal law governing a claim, the claim was adjudicated on the merits because “the decision was reached on substantive rather than procedural grounds.” Id. at 1177; see also Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8, 123 S.Ct. 362, 154 L.Ed.2d 263 (2002) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). Thus, we apply the AEDPA standard. To prevail
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 in diversity cases federal courts are to apply state substantive law and federal procedural law holding that state courts failure to discuss or even to be aware of federal precedent does not in itself render the decision contrary to federal law holding that a federal courts dismissal of state claims without prejudice is not res judicata as to adjudication in either state or federal courts 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