because: (1) O’Laughlin’s prior contacts with Kotowski were minimal; (2) the facts here “do[] not align” with a robbery motive; (3) the prosecution’s weapon was “merely ‘consistent’” with Kotowski’s injuries; (4) the motive evidence here was “mere conjecture”; (5) O’Laughlin was not caught in a lie and did not flee the scene; and (6) the evidence of consciousness of guilt was “bare conjecture.” O’Laughlin III, 568 F.3d at 306-OS. At most, these examples amount to a disagreement as to the weight particular pieces of evidence should receive and the inferences to be drawn from them. But a state prisoner is not entitled to habeas relief under AEDPA merely because a federal court disagrees with the state court’s assessment of the evidence. See Williams, 529 U.S. at 410, 120 S.Ct. 1495 (<HOLDING>). The state court’s determination must be so
holding that it is not recognizing that the determination is an equitable one holding that the writ may not issue merely because a federal court finds that a state courts decision was erroneous or incorrect  recognizing that a state courts determination is not an unreasonable application of law merely because it is erroneous recognizing that appellate court may reverse trial courts judgment when it is based on an erroneous conclusion of law