(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.Never has the Supreme Court clearly established that a judge who presided over a criminal defendant's earlier trial may not participate in a wholly unrelated appeal. To the contrary, judges are generally permitted to participate in proceedings despite previous engagements with a defendant, unless there is some other basis for recusal. See, e.g., United States v. Hill, 442 Fed. App'x 811, 813 (4th Cir. 2011) (finding that district judge did not err by failing to recuse from criminal proceedings where the judge had presided over an earlier civil trial involving conduct relevant to the criminal prosecution); United States v. Marrero, 219 Fed. App'x 892, 895 (11th Cir. 2007) ("The fact that the district judge presided over Marrero's earlier proceeding is an insufficient ground to require her to recuse herself from a later jury trial."); United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers, Union No. 33 v. Meese, 823 F.2d 652, 659 (1st Cir. 1987) ("It is well established, however, that participation in prior proceedings involving the same or similar facts or parties does not in itself constitute grounds for disqualification."); Mitchell v. Fiore, 470 F.2d 1149, 1153 (3d Cir. 1972) (finding that it was proper that a district judge try "contempt charges despite his having presided over defendant's three earlier trials.").

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Movant's conviction on August 11, 2011. See United States v. Hill, 442 F. App'x 811 (4th Cir. 2011).