Can the District Court ignore the views of this Court stated in Lovell v. Duffey pertaining to 2254 (d) (2) claims, which should focus on what State Court knew and did at the time, and instead construe Cullen v. Pinholster as to prohibit actual testimony heard by the State Post-Conviction Court prior to it's ruling?

QUESTION PRESENTED ~ Can the District Court ignore the views of this Court stated in Lovell v. Duffey pertaining to 2254 (d) (2) claims, which should focus on what State Court knew and did at the time, and instead construe Cullen v. Pinholster as to prohibit actual testimony heard by the State Post-Conviction Court prior to it's ruling? Thus, preventing itself, | . from reviewing Petitioner's Habeas Corpus with the same set of facts and frustrating | | Petitioner's chance of proving Strickland and states duplicity, which is in direct conflict with the 2" Circuits decision in Heckler. | If it is clear from the face of the record that the state Post-Conviction Court clearly believed facts which showed a deprivation of constitutional rights and awarded an Evidentiary Hearing, yet (erroneously) concluded relief be denied along with that Evidentary Hearing with no reasoning. Shouldn't the District Court “safeguard” Petitioner's due process right to a full and fair hearing as set forth by this court in the longstanding decisions in Townsend and Keeney when the merits of a factual dispute have not been addressed and is in direct conflict with the 9" Circuits ruling in Vicks v. Bunnell]?