the Allen charge was given in [Hooks’s] case, the Court concludes that it was not coercive in such a way as to deny him a fair trial and due process of law. The OCCA’s determination that [Hooks] was not entitled to relief is neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. C. Analysis 1. AEDPA Deference Hooks asserts the trial court’s Allen instruction, “in its context and under all the circumstances,” was so coercive as to deny him a reliable sentencing proceeding. Lowenfield, 484 U.S. at 237, 108 S.Ct. 546 (quotation omitted). He further argues this court should review his jury coercion claim de novo because the OCCA’s compartmentalized adjudication of the claim is contrary to Lowenfield. See Brown v. Uphoff 381 F.3d 1219, 1225 (10th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). In the alternative, Hooks argues the
holding that when a state court adjudication is contrary to clearly established supreme court precedent this court must review de novo whether petitioner is entitled to habeas relief holding that where the supreme court has expressly left an open question circuit precedent is immaterial and there is no clearly established law for the state court to have unreasonably applied holding that review is de novo where there has been no adjudication on the merits in state court holding this court can issue habeas writ only if state courts application of supreme court precedent is objectively unreasonable holding that appellant was entitled to a de novo review however he was not entitled to a de novo review of an argument never raised