Does the decision below, which misstates and fails to afford any presumption of correctness to a state court's factual findings in a habeas case, warrant summary reversal?

QUESTION PRESENTED This Court has summarily reversed when a federal court failed to afford “a presumption of correctness” to a state court’s factual findings in a habeas case. See Burden v. Zant, 498 U.S. 433, 436-38 (1991) (per curiam). In this habeas case, a state court found that a prosecutor had assured four Commonwealth witnesses that he would “maintain[] the possibility for later negotiation based on the witnesses’ cooperation.” Pet. App. 150a (footnote omitted). All four witnesses had faced their own charges and played a central role at Petitioner’s trial. A federal district court presumed the correctness of the state court’s fact-finding but concluded that the state court did not violate 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) by denying Petitioner’s claims under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 88 (1963), and Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959). The Third Circuit affirmed on different grounds. It read the state court to have found that the prosecutor had maintained “the possibility for later negotiation” with only one witness “based on the witness[’s] cooperation.” See Pet. App. 10a—1la (quoting Pet. App. 150a) (alteration in Third Circuit’s opinion). The question presented is: Does the decision below, which misstates and fails to afford any presumption of correctness to a state court’s factual findings in a habeas case, warrant summary reversal? i