examination of the record and the clearly established Supreme Court law, but we must still confine our review to whether the court’s determination resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law....” Bell v. Jarvis, 236 F.3d 149, 158 (4th Cir.2000) (en banc) (citations & internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, when the state court does not articulate a rationale for its decision, our analysis focuses solely on the result reached, and application of the “contrary to” prong is necessarily limited to determining whether the state court decision is contrary to a decision reached by the Supreme Court on indistinguishable facts. Cf. Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 123 S.Ct. 362, 365, 154 L.Ed.2d 263 (2002) (<HOLDING>). Reid does not contend that the state court
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 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 to pass muster under the contrary to prong a state court need not cite relevant supreme court precedent or even be aware of relevant cases so long as neither the reasoning nor the result of the statecourt decision contradicts them holding aedpas contrary to clause does not require citation of our cases indeed it does not even require awareness of our eases so long as neither the reasoning nor the result of the statecourt decision contradicts them 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