set forth in paragraphs numbered (1) to (7), inclusive, is shown by the applicant, otherwise appears, or is admitted by the respondent, or unless the court concludes pursuant to the provisions of paragraph numbered (8) that the record in the State court proceeding, considered as a whole, does not fairly support such factual determination, the burden shall rest upon the applicant to establish by convincing evidence that the factual determination by the State court was erroneous. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) (1988). 6 . To the extent that the district court’s determination in this case either involved a mixed question of law and facts, see Mata, 455 U.S. at 597, 102 S.Ct. 1303, or a pure question of law, see Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 111-12, 116 S.Ct. 457, 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995) (<HOLDING>), § 2254(d)'s provisions would not have applied
holding that questions with a uniquely legal dimension were outside  2254ds presumption of correctness holding evidence insufficient to overcome presumption of correctness holding that although the presumption of correctness applies to the ultimate classification decision  the presumption carries no force as to questions of law holding that agency decisions enjoy a presumption of correctness holding that appellate review of hearsay issues is de novo with no presumption of correctness