Whether the principles of substantial limitation on collateral review in habeas corpus cases pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 apply to habeas corpus cases pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in light of the state court's failure to respect the limited role prescribed by Congress

Federal Courts wusf de-Petf' +«? sFo-fe court -factual f knctiirw^s lotaeift o.^e^WrHn^te Via ad a cwfFcf a heartnn^ On has beeia i*iade after cl WeariUa, on -the merits ©f c< -fcxc,-Vu<3i.l fvsue Miller £L v, Coe.^ti\\ 531 U-.S, 3U.miW S.c-t. <Wl ■ I5«i U.&L ad *\3lfxoo^) Al/L ‘ ^*3 U-5.C. ?aas*\ applw our habeas prudes embrdfes Hits defence. Fa©Wl deArerTHwatiovis by state Court* afc presuv*<ed to Carrac^absent deaf cuaA com — vTvlcia © ^evide*ce F© +We ContravTiJj ^3»SH(e)C0) <3decision ad?udie<=ted an Hie Wievrt-Vc, in a sFote, Court awi basei cx^a fWtuaV d^fevTncfn^tio in anil not fee ©ue^ — Furred ©v^tacWM grounds unless objectively uvir'e.asenable Jk 1 iLWt of the ei/i°dewce presented la Hie state-Court proeeediA«L.S. a.9.5H(d)(£)*y*This v5 Confirmed. bu FV»e /4 4i^_ Twfotf-Tst*' and E-PfeaF-we. TeatH Penality Acf\s (^A EDpt) Substantial l?m?t<=iti©ny ©a dal — VaFe^aA feL/?e«^ wliTeV teAHeofs C’ovugress^es concern For Federalism , Rice v. Ce>fl?ns SH4 UL.S, 333, l*b S.CF.TG^J ifc3 u» Ed.ud gXH(^oo^Breye^ J. (Wurr&u)(b Coas^eraFve.AS ©f+eFe.ro\iSWl reou-ire -featured habeas Courts to skouJ yet fur-H'eV' deHtfence Fo «jVc*Ve. court juAo iweucF&.^f The Supreme. Court refterated that A ED PA ^ CreateA ^mdep^ndo-At Inf^b standard Fa be met before o. federal Court may issue cs. u;v-?F ©flridb^s Corpus +0 5eV cysTde Hate «-Court ruAiWs,/f UttecWt a. Brylina. > a.7 s.ctv&atff 3A*Hj lb7 \-.ISA. Mftb (Lircuft's ^rant of habeas carpu 5 rel^F cohere tbe coiwV Failed Fo respect Hielimited role ,. . preseffbed bg Coviare?c ,f 44<w' s *,«L resdt+s»^f„^W ?l«,4a'J Tr+tS L« ^f ^ WheWier the priACv.ples Su.WsFauFial l ivk-iFo-Vvoa OA Co l(aF«rcv\ reufeuJ tA habeoj Corpus Cases puxrsuawV Fo A.8 \K»5i.C*J' SH applvj Fo bo-beas Corpus Oxk. p wenJu'A Cases pursua-wF Fe> '9^'S tX.S,c»J; S.9\H\ ? X.~F Sc> FWov\ * VI Vie Abe r -We \cno«r CourVs \v\ FFis Case -FoTleA Fo -tF«MtnAespF^ SFovFe. ProseCuFor's off tee caA FVe AtrrAesofo Sfa^e Courts droop >% av\A cFisWLvssiAa Fbe. SAotFe Colse w?FV\ prejudice. respeoFtveVu. affer aft OmA?bu.s r MoFtoA wo-s fileA. because of FWe uAlovoful ac-fwiFt es of Fvte Mw^iesoF SFs^Fe Trooper tvivoVwedy u^°) CV^ ovk^ cFber things fte’-biriCaFeA'^ev ’idmc'e(fube^ Hot based ew prababU Causej ufthheU exCuVpa+ory evidence cj,a<F was fouvid F« be tnoF Credt%le f 3) WViefiievr Fbe pruno^pt^ of Abe RooferFeldriaev Ibotribe epplfes F& FVvfs Caye tjbAeb preclude^ cl pairFij foSme^ in sfaW Court »r, froiM seelCi A& ujhodr substa^ee uouVcl be appellate revvetO of HW state judcj-Aveut ja cl UnfVed Stales cLiteicF Court Wsed On -Wve IosTa^ parA>j's (jutnFessenFibJlJf cUfvA that the state jueL meut Tf^elf ^ vtolaFes Fbe Users federal r&Mrj* Joh^SM. i/. Te GFcLAdv,, SIX U S ^°n HM S, CF. atHTj m \?kEd,3^ 77 5(;mM)A })©*=10 OuA ro5e — %) tW re^ufr^d defereree 4e> IDOS -ofe ;)