prejudice. The Michigan Court of Appeals and the Magistrate Judge both concluded that Petitioner did not. For the reasons set forth in the Report, the Court finds that Petitioner suffered no prejudice. Specifically, no mention was made of Petitioner in the testimony and Petitioner was in no way implicated. The jury was appropriately instructed to only consider evidence properly admitted against Petitioner, which would not be this testimony. Petitioner has not met the demands of 28 U.SC. § 2254(d). C. Certificate of Appealability Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, the Court must also assess whether to grant the issuance of a certificate of appealability to Petitioner on his failure to object claim against his trial attorney. See Castro v. United States, 310 F.3d 900, 903 (6th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Under the statute and the United States
holding state of the law must be determined at time of challenged action holding that the constitutional level of punitive damages is not a finding of fact that must be determined by the jury it may be determined de novo by the court holding that statutory good time credits must be calculated under the law in effect at the time of resentencing after an appeal of the sentence is determined holding that  2253 analysis may be done at the time the claim for relief is determined holding that clearly established federal law as determined by the supreme court under aedpa is the law at the time of the statecourt adjudication on the merits not at the time the conviction becomes final