555 (1991); see also id. at 649, 111 S.Ct. 2491 (Scalia, J., concurring). 44 . Id. at 630, 111 S.Ct. 2491. 45 . Id. at 630-31, 111 S.Ct. 2491. 46 . Id. at 631, 111 S.Ct. 2491. 47 . Id. 48 . Id. at 632, 111 S.Ct. 2491. 49 . Id. at 632-33, 111 S.Ct. 2491. 50 . Id. at 633, 111 S.Ct. 2491. 51 . Id. 52 . Id. at 637, 111 S.Ct. 2491. 53 . Id. 637-38, 111 S.Ct. 2491. 54 . Id. at 637, 111 S.Ct. 2491 (citation omitted). 55 . Id. at 639, 111 S.Ct. 2491. 56 . Id. (alteration in original). 57 . Id. at 649, 111 S.Ct. 2491 (Scalia, J., concurring). 58 . Id. at 650, 111 S.Ct. 2491. 59 . Id. 60 . Id. 61 .Id. at 651, 111 S.Ct. 2491. 62 . Id. 63 . Id. 64 . Id. 65 . Paredes I, 574 F.3d 281, 293 (5th Cir.2009). 66 . Id. 67 . Id. 68 . Renico v. Lett, - U.S. -, 130 S.Ct 1855, 1866, 176 L.Ed.2d 678 (2010) (<HOLDING>). 69 . Id. at 1864. Renico also held that the
holding that a decision of the court of appeals could not be understood merely to illuminate  the supreme courts decision in arizona v washington 434 us 497 98 sct 824 54 led2d 717 1978 which had considered the breadth of a trial courts discretion in granting a mistrial holding that the supreme courts proper scope of review of a trial courts decision in a trial de novo of an assessment matter is whether the decision of the trial court was clearly erroneous holding that the ninth circuit erred in granting habeas relief because the state courts decision was not an unreasonable application of strickland v washington 466 us 668 104 sct 2052 80 led2d 674 1984 holding that the court need not follow a decision of the district of columbia court of appeals where  it appears that the  court of appeals itself would not follow that decision holding that such a decision was within the trial courts discretion