Whether the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) permits federal habeas review of a state court conviction when the petitioner's claims are procedurally defaulted or lack merit under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)

No question identified. : Hoerig v. Olds, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 7053 United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit March 26, 2025, Filed No, 24-3382 Reporter 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 7053 * CLAUDIA C. HOERIG, vy. WARDEN SHANNON OLDS, _ Olds, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 1296 (6th Cir., Jan. 21, 2025 Prior History: Hoerig v Core Terms en banc, petition for rehearing Counsel: [*1] CLAUDIA C. HOERIG, Petitioner Appellant, Pro se, Dayton, OH. For WARDEN SHANNON OLDS, Respondent Appellee: Jerri L. Fosnaught, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Columbus, OH. Judges: Before: NORRIS, MOORE, and READLER, Circuit Judges. Opinion ORDER Claudia C. Hoerig, a pro se Ohio prisoner, petitions for rehearing en banc of this court's order on entered January 21, 2025, denying her motion for a certificate of appealability. The petition was initially referred to this panel, on which the original deciding judge does not sit. After review of the petition, this panel issued an order announcing its conclusion that the original application was properly denied. The petition was then circulated to all active members of the court, none of whom requested a vote on the suggestion for an en banc rehearing. Pursuant to established court procedures, the panel now denies the petition for rehearing en banc. 29 Case: 24-3382 Document: 12-1 Filed: 01/21/2025 Page: 1 (1 of 13) No. 24-3382 / FILED Jan 21, 2025 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk CLAUDIA C. HOERIG, ) ‘ v. ORDER WARDEN SHANNON OLDS, Before: BOGGS, Circuit Judge. Claudia C. Hoerig, a pro se Ohio prisoner, appeals the district court’s judgment denying her petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and moves this court for a certificate of appealability (COA). For the reasons discussed below, the motion is denied. In 2019, an Ohio jury found Hoerig guilty of the 2007 aggravated murder of her husband, Karl Hoerig, with a firearm specification. Hoerig admitted that she shot Karl three times but maintained that she did so after the two had a heated argument and that she was attempting to commit suicide. Hoerig was not arrested until 2018, after she was apprehended in and extradited from Brazil. She was sentenced to life in prison. The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed, State v. Hoerig, No. 2019-T-0012, 2020 WL 1685624, at *10 (Ohio Ct. App. Apr. 6, 2020), and the Ohio Supreme Court denied leave to appeal, State v. Hoerig, 163 N.E.3d 593 (Ohio 2021) (table). Hoerig then filed an application to reopen her direct appeal under Ohio Rule of Appellate Procedure 26(B). The Ohio Court of Appeals denied the application, and the Ohio Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. State v. Hoerig, 166 N.E.3d 17 (Ohio 2021) (table). In her § 2254 petition, Hoerig raises 12 claims. Over Hoerig’s objections, the district court agreed with the magistrate judge that her claims are either not cognizable, are procedurally Case: 24-3382 Document: 12-1 Filed: 01/21/2025 Page: 2 No. 24-3382 -2defaulted, were reasonably adjudicated on the merits by the state courts, or lack merit. The district court therefore denied Hoerig’s petition and declined to issue a COA. ACOA may be granted “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see Miller-El y. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327, 336 (2003). Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), when a state court adjudicates the petitioner’s claims on the merits, the district court may not grant habeas relief unless the state court’s adjudication resulted in “a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” or “a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 100