Gray

MEMORANDUM **

William Gray petitions for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court denied relief. The facts are familiar to the parties, so we recount them only as necessary to explain our decision.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1) we may grant habeas relief for a claim adjudicated in a state court if — and only if — that 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.” When we initially considered Gray’s appeal we concluded, under our then-applicable precedent, that the appellate court’s failure to apply the pertinent Supreme Court precedent with respect to his fourth claim rendered the state decision “contrary to” that precedent. We therefore reversed the district court’s decision on that ground. The Court has since clarified, however, that a state court’s “fail[ure] to apply” Supreme Court precedent does not necessarily satisfy the “contrary to” prong of 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d), Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3 , 123 S.Ct. 362, 366 , 154 L.Ed.2d 263 (2002), and remanded this case for further consideration in light of that ruling, Klauser v.…