reasons: (1) he was denied effective assistance of counsel; (2) the prosecutor violated his right to due process by making improper comments during closing argument of the punishment phase of his trial; and (3) the trial court denied him due process by depriving him of the opportunity to present testimony from a witness during the punishment proceeding. The respondent argues that Sehultze is not entitled to relief on any of his claims under the governing federal habeas corpus standard of review set forth below. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Federal review of the pending habeas corpus petition'is subject to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (the “AEDPA”), Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996). See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 336, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997) (<HOLDING>). Embodying the principles of federalism,
holding that prisoners had one year from the effective date of aedpa april 24 1996 to file their habeas petitions before they could be considered timebarred by the operation of  2244d1 holding that a prisoner with a state conviction finalized before april 24 1996  had until april 23 1997 to file a federal habeas petition holding that in general aedpa applies only to habeas petitions filed after the statutes effective date of april 24 1996 and noting that aedpas special procedures for 28 usc  2254 petitions in capital cases apply also to petitions pending on april 24 1996 holding that habeas petitions challenging judgments of conviction that became final before the effective date of the aedpa are not time barred if filed within one year from aedpas effective date april 241996 holding that the aedpa applies to those habeas corpus petitions filed after its effective date of april 24 1996