Whether a habeas corpus application should be granted when a state court decision was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law

QUESTION PRESENTED An application for a writ of habeas corpus should be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings that “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S.Ct. 1888, 179 L. Ed. 2d 557, 563 U.S. 170 (2011); citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) Petitioner presents the following argument before this honorable Court: 1. The U.S. Fifth Circuit departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings and sanctioned the departure by the U.S. District Court in finding that: A. The decisions of the state courts were not unreasonable under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 even though Petitioner’s custodial interrogation persisted after Petitioner unequivocally invoked his right to counsel and declined to answer questions in violation of his rights secured under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as described in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). i