Did the 11th Circuit err in deferring to the State Court finding that Mr. McHenry was not prejudiced by trial counsel's conflict of interest and failure to call a witness who would have impeached the state's evidence?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED , Mn, MHenag alleged that Ais teal Gransel was InePeetive Lox failing to tall a witness of whem Me. MHe nay Was awore he was aocenk for possession of meth, Marg Etherly 1 NMehells hunt , The omtlel witness weuled have Festi Ciel that the auidence belersed to Mitchell. Adber she Lilet a non ~ prosecution AM Aavit, Mitchell the Co~ olefin dant had Sworn under Oath, The substance meth was her + personal meen " tales of the sabsfance belns fn hen PreSudee, the Fran eee a ets te Of the facts on diveot nppeel, ‘hive i‘ ws Ceaeks sien thal Sla rel ec} Vers:'en of the ( ™ ‘cantly mi sdatec even wet , Did the OH Cveuh em jn deferning to the Shale Coar} Finding Hal My. MCHenay was hot precudcee/ on harm by tral Counsels Conf[red of Lateres? and daclure fe Call a witness whe would heve impeacheal the slate we os curdlenee when the Fifth Creatt clecssion Wes Aerand miSreadsnc of the drial recorel ©