with the effect of Section 321(a) compliance, as nothing in Section 321(a) conditions compliance on intent. Id. at 143-44. 2 . Neither the EPA nor Murray contests the district court's decision to partially deny Murray injunctive relief. 3 . The only detail of the evaluation duty that Section 321(a) provides is that the duty includes "investigating threatened plant closures or reductions in employment allegedly resulting from [CAA] administration or enforcement.” 42 U.S.C. § 7621(a). However, Section 321(a) explicitly notes that these investigations need only be conducted "where appropriate,” id., and thereby renders them a matter of agency discretion unreviewable under Section 304(a)(2). See Guilford Cty. Cmty. Action Program, Inc. v. Wilson, 348 F.Supp.2d 548, 556 (M.D.N.C. 2004) (<HOLDING>); cf. Michigan v. EPA, - U.S. -, 135 S.Ct.
holding that the state courts rejection of the petitioners ineffective assistance of counsel claim was an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence before the state court recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel holding that defendant may raise claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal only if ineffective assistance is conclusive from the record holding that a statute providing that a state shall offer training and assistance if appropriate leaves the state with discretion in providing training and assistance recognizing in ineffective assistance of counsel claims a presumption that counsels conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance