Anderson v. Valenzuela

1. Whether the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision, which held that Petitioner’s trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor’s comments during closing argument, is contrary to, or involves an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). 2. Whether the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision, which held that Petitioner’s trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor’s comments during closing argument, is based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.