L.Ed.2d 249 (2010); Wood v. Allen, 558 U.S. 290, 130 S.Ct. 841, 175 L.Ed.2d 738 (2010); Smith v. Spisak, 558 U.S. 139, 130 S.Ct. 676, 175 L.Ed.2d 595 (2010); McDaniel v. Brown, 558 U.S. 120, 130 S.Ct. 665, 175 L.Ed.2d 582 (2010); Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30, 130 S.Ct. 447, 175 L.Ed.2d 398 (2009); Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. Ill, 129 S.Ct. 1411, 173 L.Ed.2d 251 (2009); Waddington v. Sarausad, 555 U.S. 179, 129 S.Ct. 823, 17 that the Sixth Circuit’s decision "ignore[d] the limits imposed on federal habeas review by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)”); GenUy, 540 U.S. at 11, 124 S.Ct. 1 (noting that the Ninth Circuit gave "too little deference to the state courts that have primary responsibility for supervising defense counsel in state criminal trials"); Woodford, 537 U.S. at 20, 123 S.Ct. 357 (<HOLDING>); Early, 537 U.S. at 4, 123 S.Ct. 362 (finding
holding that under 28 usc  2254d the ultimate question of the admissibility of a confession merits treatment as a legal inquiry requiring plenary  review holding that the ninth circuits decision exceeded the limits imposed on federal habeas review by 28 usc  2254d holding in a federal prisoners habeas case under 28 usc  2255 that the district court may raise the question of procedural default even if that defense was waived by the government holding that aedpa limits a federal habeas court to the record before the state court where a claim has been adjudicated on the merits by the state court holding  2254d authorizes federal court to review state courts decision only and not explanation of decision