procedure to protect a right which the petitioner does not possess under the Federal Constitution. 3 . The majority ventures that "not only was Juror 4's interpretation of the questions on voir dire reasonable, but an independent review of the record demonstrates that, by all measures, it was the correct one.” Maj. Op. at 949. But section 2254(d)(2) does not aslc if Juror 4’s interpretation was reasonable; it asks if the state courts’ interpretation was unreasonable. And even if "an independent review of the record demonstrates" that Juror 4’s interpretation “was the correct one,” this is not relevant to a habeas analysis. Our jurisdiction in state habeas cases is limited to determining whether the state courts’ findings were unreasonable, not incorrect. See Andrade, 123 S.Ct. at 1175 (<HOLDING>). 4 . The majority’s affirmance of the district
holding that void order must exceed courts authority to act and not be merely erroneous recognizing that a state courts determination is not an unreasonable application of law merely because it is erroneous holding that federal courts must accept the decision of the states highest court even if it is an erroneous one holding that federal court may not issue writ of coram nobis for state prisoner holding that the writ may not issue merely because a federal court finds that a state courts decision was erroneous or incorrect 