context: As noted earlier, decisions from three state supreme courts support Varner's interpretation of Crane. See supra at 766-67. The standard of review in habeas corpus cases, however, is whether the state court's application of the federal law was objectively unreasonable.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.parenthetical: "[A]n unreasonable application of federal law is different from an incorrect application of federal law."
citation_a.sentence: Williams, 529 U.S. at 410, 120 S.Ct. 1495 (“[A]n unreasonable application of federal law is different from an incorrect application of federal law.”); see also Anderson v. Cowan, 227 F.3d 893, 896-97 (7th Cir.2000) (under the “unreasonable application of’ clause, the court should “defer to a reasonable, if incorrect, state court decision”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 227 F.3d 893, 896-97
citation_b.parenthetical: under the "unreasonable application of' clause, the court should "defer to a reasonable, if incorrect, state court decision"
citation_b.sentence: Williams, 529 U.S. at 410, 120 S.Ct. 1495 (“[A]n unreasonable application of federal law is different from an incorrect application of federal law.”); see also Anderson v. Cowan, 227 F.3d 893, 896-97 (7th Cir.2000) (under the “unreasonable application of’ clause, the court should “defer to a reasonable, if incorrect, state court decision”).