Whether the Alabama state courts and federal district court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law in denying habeas relief to the petitioner, who showed that he was incarcerated in federal prison during the time period when the alleged state offenses occurred, and the state was allowed to change the dates of the offenses to after his release from federal prison

No question identified. : Question’s Presented ae | Fist Yo prevai ona 2254 Clafen adjudicated On. the. mets. by ae the State Courts, a peHoner musi Show that a decision by the Shote Courts Les ‘Contrasy ta, o¢ iavolved an unreasonable appkcalion bo Cleacly established Fedeca\ \ow, 03 clebecmined by the Umbed States Supceme Couch Oc wos hased an an uaceasonable deterrfnation of the | facts, fo Vig of the evidence presented ‘To the State Couct Proceeding; | 26 vs.c$ 2254 (1) eQ); sez wilams v. Tayloc, 824 U8, BR, HHOH-O8 ¢ 442-43, 120 5.ck. 1499, 44G Lb. ed. 2d 38% (2000), JA state Court's dectaton #3 "Cantesy to’ Federal Law ther $¢ % Bile to apply the covcect contealling authority, or $855 applies the cantealiting, jauthosiby be a cose involving forks “cnotectally those Koo conteatting outhos‘ty, bot mane the less reaches a dsMecent result. Lt Sams, 524 u.5. At. HO4-OL; Bell v. Cone, 835 v.5. 685, (AY, 422 Bick. 4843, 152 Ld. 24.444 (2002) | State court's decision 75 an unceasonable application “of Federal how TF it Sthec coscectly ‘dentiffes the goverding cule but then appives ft to Tha new det of Pacts fa a way that fs objectively uareascnable, oc Tt extends Hor Fils. be extend a Cleocly established legal pstoet ple fo a new context fer way that 73 objectively voaceasonable. Here To thts case, Alabama State Courts, as wetlas the Federal Disteict Court's dectstons were unreasonable when Considering the Gocbs, for example: Jo the. Stete Couct thal proceeding, the State alleged Ynok Tope Commited the offenses dosing om Cechain peried Ho? Ke, ducting tuhich, the Kime Foame of when the alleged offenses accured, Pe proved that he could not have commited the offenses becouse he wes HIcon@ened 2a Federal Peeson. The State was then allowed ts modtty when the | offenses Occuced te Show that ‘Tope did comets the offenses. In other wocds, Stoke was allowed to change the dates and Vine frames of when the offenses |, Db coe ne em | happened to Show they cteuced oGber Tope was Celeased Pram Faders\ prison. | However, Tope Showed and proved. that he commited no offense before, duting, . ; ot after his Federal fncaccecation. This 78 Ttaalé Object vey unceasonable. dosh example % when Tope Sled a pek¥ion fee postConviction calie’, The Couck | held. on te the peliion Foc Smonths before cetueciing fs to lope Shaking thet (pe most Pay a ¥lhag Tee fac each peliifon, and that becavse pe had. 4 rene Seperate pelitten must be Mea foc each chasae., as wellas & { Sepecerre Citing Cee, Th8S wes UACeadenalle, Under State Veue, O. Sage petitien | may be Glad oagiinst Several Convictions thak acase out of a Stogle WGo\. ||Reed Vv. Stoke, TH, $0.24. 234, 236 CAla.Cc‘ion, App.4944) | ecause the couch worted so long to inform ‘Tape of 71S esconeous and. = wrong Stokement of law, tt Covsed pce sodice to ape , and. thos [evegulecty calculated the Cunding Hone to Fle Ws 22H pelition To i|Nedecal cour. Tape dspoted the magistcate’s VindSegs and Conclosicas of law, js Facts and evidence Wek were Contracy te the stake Court's. ope requested the Gedeca\, couch to order the stole 0 Alaloama to Submit certain | Cles that were ommited From the State's Clings so that Tope could. Show and IIpsove his Tnnocence. The Omentted cecords were:1) lope’s previously led | cule 82 pettMons; 2) The police cepacts; 3) The department of hucan cesouree’s IGAes as they pretavn to hi's cases, H) Medical recocds of Tecci Rape and | Sunyethe Times, te Show that these alheged Vickims had conteacted a SeXuclly teansoiWed disease, Specifically gonocchea, ubile ‘Tope was contined In Ledero\ pXis00; and, 5) Dazuments led. by attorney Thomas Haas. These dacuments ipece never Supeitad fn Federal Court despite the fact that a court order hast been TsSued for these documents. The State ot Alabama hak alleged. that Ih documents were uoder a Seah 0 the state couct, however, no order was ; io ‘oy ony State Couch to Seal ne . The deGlance disployed by i = ine State Court te the Couch ordec to Pro