In review of a claim fully adjudicated in state court, did the district court violate 28-usc-2254, finality, federalism

QUESTION PRESENTED Respondent James Nathaniel Bryant has twice been convicted for the murder of Cpl. Dennis Lyden and twice sentenced to death. At the second trial, one potential juror disclosed a hearing impairment, but was qualified without objection and selected. The trial judge informally tested the juror’s ability to hear throughout the proceedings. When the State expressed concern, defense counsel maintained a desire to retain the juror and Bryant personally agreed. In collateral proceedings, Bryant alleged a violation of due process and ineffective assistance. The state court denied relief finding Bryant failed to show that the juror was so impaired as to have “missed material testimony,” (App. 10; 211-12), or that counsel made an unreasonable decision to retain the juror. In 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas review, the district court disagreed with the state court’s fact-finding and ordered resentencing. A split panel of the Fourth Circuit reversed finding mere disagreement was insufficient to show an unreasonable determination. After argument en banc, the Fourth Circuit, lacking a majority, vacated the panel opinion by an evenly divided court. The question presented is: In review of a claim fully adjudicated in state court, did the district court violate 28 U.S.C. § 2254’s deference mandate and offend the principles of finality and federalism by upsetting a capital sentence based on mere disagreement with record-supported state court fact-findings? ii STATEMENT OF