WILSON, Circuit Judge:

Alphonso Cave, a Florida state prisoner under sentence of death, appeals the district court's denial of his application for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He raises five issues for our review, including three claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, an allegation that the district court applied an erroneous standard of review, and an argument that his sentencing violated Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002). Having determined that the district court's well-reasoned opinion properly resolved all of these issues, we affirm.

I.

In 1982, Cave was convicted of first-degree murder and kidnapping for his role in an armed robbery and abduction that resulted in the death of a young convenience store clerk in Stuart, Florida. On direct appeal, the Florida Supreme Court summarized the crime as follows:

Cave v. State, 476 So.2d 180, 183 (Fla.1985) (per curiam).1

Following a 7-5 death recommendation by the jury, the trial court sentenced Cave to death. Since that time, Cave's case has been the subject of extensive post-conviction litigation, resulting in two subsequent sentencing proceedings.2 The counsel whose allegedly ineffective assistance is now at issue represented Cave in both of these later proceedings.

In the most recent sentencing—in 1996—pursuant to a jury recommendation of 11-1, the trial court again sentenced Cave to death. It found four aggravating circumstances: (1) the murder was committed during the flight following a robbery and during a kidnapping; (2) the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, and cruel; (3) the murder was committed in a cold, calculated, and pre-meditated manner; and (4) the murder was committed to avoid an arrest. The trial court also found one statutory mitigating circumstance—that Cave had no significant prior criminal activity—and several non-statutory mitigating circumstances,3 but gave them all little weight. Over a dissent by Justice Anstead, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed Cave's sentence. See Cave v. State, 727 So.2d 227, 232 (Fla.1998) (5-2 decision).

Cave subsequently filed a motion for post-conviction relief in state court under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied Cave's request for relief on the merits, and—in a substantial written opinion—the Florida Supreme Court affirmed. See generally Cave v. State, 899 So.2d 1042 (Fla.2005). In 2005, Cave filed a federal application for a writ of habeas corpus in the Southern District of Florida. The district court denied Cave relief, and this appeal followed.

II.

At the outset, we address Cave's arguments that the district court applied an erroneous standard of review.

Because Cave petitions for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on claims that the state courts previously adjudicated on the merits, we are restricted in our ability to grant federal relief. In order to grant his application, we must find not only that Cave's constitutional claims are meritorious, but also that the state court's resolution of those claims: (1) "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 (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." See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)-(2). We review a district court's decision to grant or deny a habeas petition de novo, including its determination of whether the state court's decision was unreasonable. Hall v. Head, 310 F.3d 683, 690 (11th Cir.2002).

Cave argues that "the district court misinterpreted the degree of deference which had to be paid to the state court's findings of facts and conclusions of law," questioning the court's formulation of § 2254(d)'s restriction on federal habeas relief and its relationship to § 2254(e)'s presumption of correctness for factual determinations made by the state court. We address these arguments in turn.

A.

Cave invokes the Supreme Court's seminal decision interpreting the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's amendments to § 2254's statutory language, Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000), to argue that the district court erroneously deferred to the state court's legal conclusions on his ineffective assistance claims, employing inappropriately "heightened deference." His argument is based on the following quotations from Section II of Justice Stevens's opinion in that case:

Williams, 529 U.S. at 387, 120 S.Ct. 1495 (Stevens, J., concurring) (quoting Lindh v. Murphy, 96 F.3d 856, 869 (7th Cir.1996) (en banc), rev'd on other grounds, 521 U.S. 320, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997)); and

Williams, 529 U.S. at 386-87, 120 S.Ct. 1495, (Stevens, J., concurring) (footnote omitted) (citations omitted).

While these quotes certainly support Cave's arguments, they do not represent the controlling interpretation of § 2254(d). Justice Stevens announced the judgment of the Court, but a majority of the justices did not join in his opinion's second section, interpreting the AEDPA amendments to the habeas statute. Instead, a majority of the Court endorsed Justice O'Connor's alternative interpretation, offered in Section II of her opinion. It is this latter interpretation of the statutory language that binds this Court and specifically disclaims a reading of § 2254(d) that, like Cave's, would allow a federal court to substitute its own judgment on the merits of a habeas claim for that of the state court without first finding that the state court's resolution was unreasonable. See id. at 410, 120 S.Ct. 1495 (O'Connor, J., writing for the majority) ("The term `unreasonable' is no doubt difficult to define. That said, ... the most important point is that an unreasonable application of federal law is different from an incorrect application of federal law.").

In several recent decisions, the Supreme Court has re-emphasized that AEDPA mandates highly deferential review of state court decisions. In Harrington v. Richter, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 770, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011), for example, the Supreme Court stated:

Id. at 786-87 (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). See also Premo v. Moore, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 733, 740, 178 L.Ed.2d 649 (2011) ("The standards created by Strickland and § 2254(d) are both highly deferential, and when the two apply in tandem, review is doubly so." (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Similarly, in Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1855, 176 L.Ed.2d 678 (2010), the Supreme Court stated:

Id. at 1862 (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We find no error in the district court's application of this standard.

B.

Cave next argues that the district court erred by reading § 2254(e)(1)'s clear-and-convincing evidence burden into § 2254(d)(2)'s reasonableness restriction on federal habeas relief for claims decided on factual bases in state court.

Section 2254(d)(2) permits federal courts to grant habeas relief when the state court's merits adjudication "resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented to the State court proceeding." Id. (emphasis added). However, in the statute's next subsection, 2254(e)(1), Congress mandated that "a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct," and that a habeas petitioner bears the burden of rebutting this presumption by "clear and convincing evidence." Courts have struggled to interpret how these abutting standards interact in the context of fact-based challenges to state court adjudications.4

While reciting its standard of review, the court below stated:

Cave v. McDonough, No. 05-14137, at *5 (S.D.Fla. Sept. 28, 2009) (citations omitted).

Cave contends that the district court erred by requiring him to show that the state court's decision was based on a determination of the facts that was clearly-and-convincingly unreasonable. The Respondents ("State") offer a two-fold response, first asserting that this Court has repeatedly held that "claims under (d)(2) must use the standard set out in (e)[(1)]," citing Henyard v. McDonough, 459 F.3d 1217, 1240 (11th Cir.2006) (per curiam) and Marquard v. Secretary for the Department of Corrections, 429 F.3d 1278, 1303 (11th Cir.2005), but then arguing that the distinction between these two standards is unnecessary to decide this case. We agree only with this latter proposition.

Henyard and Marquard merely contain recitations of law in their "standards of review" sections that paraphrase the statutory text.5 These are not holdings. See Black's Law Dictionary 749 (8th ed.2004) (defining a holding as, "[a] court's determination of a matter of law pivotal to its decision; a principle drawn from such a decision"). We are bound by language in prior cases when that language answers questions actually presented and decided, or is otherwise necessary to the answers of those presented and decided questions. See United States v. Kaley, 579 F.3d 1246, 1253 n. 10 (11th Cir.2009) ("What matters in discerning whether a rule of law expounded by a court is in fact holding is whether it was necessary to the result reached, or, in the alternative, could be discarded without impairing the foundations of the holding.").

We acknowledge that one can find similar recitations of law in our cases that assume § 2254(d)(2) and § 2254(e)(1) fit together in the way the State advocates. However, as we have previously observed, "[n]o court has fully explored the interaction of § 2254(d)(2)'s `unreasonableness' standard and § 2254(e)(1)'s `clear and convincing evidence' standard." Gore v. Sec'y for Dep't of Corr., 492 F.3d 1273, 1294 n. 51 (11th Cir.2007). Moreover, just two years ago while sitting en banc, we reviewed a panel decision applying the very construction of § 2254(d)(2) urged on us by the State and decided that—at the very least— § 2254(e)(1)'s clear-and-convincing standard does not always apply to fact-driven challenges to state detentions:

Jones v. Walker, 540 F.3d 1277, 1288 n. 5 (11th Cir.2008) (en banc). See also Green v. Nelson, 595 F.3d 1245, 1251 (11th Cir. 2010) (finding state court unreasonably determined the facts under 2254(d)(2) and applying de novo review).

We have not yet had an occasion to completely define the respective purviews of (d)(2) and (e)(1), and this case presents no such opportunity. We find that the district court's fact-based decisions below did not turn on any distinction between "unreasonableness" and a "clear-and-convincing unreasonableness." The state court's decisions on Cave's claims were not based on unreasonable factual determinations in light of the evidence before it under any standard. Consequently, Cave's challenge on this front fails. See Wood v. Allen, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 841, 845, 175 L.Ed.2d 738 (2010) ("We conclude ... that the state court's factual determination was reasonable even under petitioner's reading of § 2254(d)(2), and therefore we need not address that provision's relationship to § 2254(e)(1). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals on that basis.").6

III.

We now turn to the gravamen of Cave's application: his claims that he was denied the assistance of constitutionally effective counsel.

Cave raised numerous claims of ineffective assistance below, but on appeal, his arguments revolve around three core claims: (1) that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney's penalty-phase strategy was based on a misunderstanding of Florida law; (2) that he was denied effective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to perpetuate or utilize an exculpatory statement made by co-defendant Bush on the eve of his execution; and (3) that he was denied effective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to object to an allegedly improper line of questioning during voir dire. Having carefully reviewed the district court's order, we find no error in its disposition of these claims.

A.

The federal law governing ineffective assistance claims is well settled. See generally Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). "An ineffective assistance claim has two components: A petitioner must show that counsel's performance was deficient, and that the deficiency prejudiced the defense." Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 521, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052). Under the performance prong, a defendant must show that his "counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness ... under prevailing professional norms." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Under the prejudice prong, a defendant must show a "reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Id. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. In the context of a challenge to a death sentence, this latter prong requires that there be "a reasonable probability that, absent the errors, the sentencer ... would have concluded that the balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances did not warrant death." Id. at 695, 104 S.Ct. 2052.

As noted above, because the state court previously adjudicated these claims on their merits, Cave has the additional burden of demonstrating that the state court's application of this demanding standard was not merely wrong, but objectively unreasonable. Lett, 130 S.Ct. at 1862; Williams, 529 U.S. at 409, 120 S.Ct. 1495. Per our discussion above, the Supreme Court recently reminded us that habeas relief under § 2254(d) serves as a "guard against extreme malfunctions in the state criminal justice systems," Richter, 131 S.Ct. at 786 (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 332 n. 5, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (Stevens, J., concurring)), and, as such, federal relief under that provision must be limited to claims where the prior state court ruling was an "error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement." Id. at 787.

B.

Cave's first claim of ineffective assistance relates to counsel's misunderstanding of Florida law. As illuminated during the state post-conviction evidentiary hearing, counsel designed Cave's penalty-phase strategy laboring under the mistaken belief that, if he were able to ensure the prosecution's proof of aggravation was limited to circumstantial evidence, so long as his own presentation established via direct evidence (i.e. Cave's testimony) an alternate theory of the crime that was not inconsistent with that circumstantial evidence, a death sentence would be overturned on appeal. Counsel dubbed this theory the "circumstantial evidence rule." This understanding of the law was erroneous.

Cave contends that basing one's trial strategy on such a misunderstanding of law constitutes deficient performance under Strickland. As an abstract proposition, the district court agreed; so do we. See Green, 595 F.3d at 1251 ("[T]he Supreme Court has explained that decisions that are based on mistaken beliefs certainly are neither strategic nor tactical." (citing Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 383-87, 106 S.Ct. 2574, 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986))); see also Horton v. Zant, 941 F.2d 1449, 1461 n. 30 (11th Cir.1991) ("[S]o called `strategic' decisions that are based on a mistaken understanding of the law... are entitled to less deference."). However, as the district court rightly noted, it is Cave's burden to link this abstract deficiency to specific, unprofessional conduct of counsel that may reasonably have impacted the trial's result.

We interpret Cave's argument on appeal with respect to this misunderstanding-of-law claim to consist of three pieces: (1) a broad argument that Cave was generally prejudiced by counsel's overarching misunderstanding of law because the misunderstanding undermined counsel's strategy; and two concrete sub-claims, based on counsel's failure to (2) introduce mental-health mitigation evidence and (3) avoid mention of a prior rape arrest. We address each of these arguments in turn.

1.

Cave contends that he was generally prejudiced by counsel's misunderstanding of law—or in the words of penalty-phase counsel at the evidentiary hearing, "procedurally prejudiced"—in that each of the defense's tactical decisions was made in light of and colored by counsel's misunderstanding. But for that misunderstanding, Cave argues, he might have chosen to pursue a different mitigation strategy or to introduce additional mitigating evidence. The gist of the argument is aptly captured by two quotations drawn from the evidentiary-hearing testimony of Cave's counsel and offered in Cave's brief:

Though such testimony might demonstrate that Cave was prejudiced by counsel's misunderstanding of law in the everyday sense of the word, it falls short of satisfying the prejudice requirement of Strickland.

The Supreme Court's definition of prejudice is premised on the belief that "[a]n error by counsel, even if professionally unreasonable, does not warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding if the error had no effect on the judgment." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Reasoning that "attorney errors come in an infinite variety and are as likely to be utterly harmless in a particular case as they are to be prejudicial," the Court decided that a habeas petitioner must bear the burden of "affirmatively prov[ing]" that counsel's unprofessional conduct had some tangible degree of impact on the proceeding's result. Id. at 693, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Since "[t]he purpose of the Sixth Amendment guarantee of counsel is to ensure that a defendant has the assistance necessary to justify reliance on the outcome of the proceeding" the Supreme Court decided that the appropriate degree of impact (i.e. prejudice) a petitioner must show is a "reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Id. at 691-92, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (emphasis added). The Court went on to define a "reasonable probability" as a "probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." Id. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052.

Consequently, even if we assume counsel performed deficiently, Cave must demonstrate more than a theoretical possibility that he could have done something differently. Instead, he must show both a reasonable probability that he would have done something differently and how that change would have impacted his sentence. Apart from the two specific sub-claims addressed below, we agree with the district court that a broader look at the evidentiary-hearing testimony of counsel shows no reasonable probability that, but for counsel's misunderstanding of law, the result of the proceeding would have been different.9

2.

Cave argues that counsel was ineffective for failing to present evidence of mental health mitigation, other than Cave's own testimony. In particular, Cave argues that counsel should have presented testimony from various mental health experts who evaluated Cave prior to sentencing. The Florida Supreme Court considered this claim and determined that counsel's decision not to present such testimony was a reasonable strategic decision that did not constitute deficient performance. The district court concluded that this judgment was a reasonable application of Strickland. We agree.

Cave contends that counsel's decision not to present a medical expert was driven by his misunderstanding of law. The record belies this contention. As the district court explained, counsel purposefully developed and considered evidence of mental health mitigation, including expert testimony. In addition to determining that such testimony would not be particularly helpful to Cave's mitigation case, counsel did not want to "open the door" to potentially damaging information. Counsel did testify that, without his misunderstanding of law, his choices regarding the mental health evidence "would have been up in the air," but counsel conceded, "that doesn't mean that ultimately the decisions would have come out different."

On the whole, we think counsel's evidentiary-hearing testimony shows that, after developing and considering the available evidence, counsel determined that the risks of such evidence outweighed its potential benefits.10 Because this conclusion formed the basis of the state court's determination that counsel's strategic decisions were reasonable and did not amount to deficient performance, we affirm the district court's judgment that Cave was not entitled to relief on this claim.

3.

Cave also contends that his counsel was ineffective for allowing the introduction of testimony that Cave had been arrested for rape in Pennsylvania.11

At sentencing, Cave pursued the sole statutory mitigating circumstance available to him: no significant prior criminal history. After calling Cave to testify, counsel elicited that Cave had never been convicted of a crime, but had once been arrested in Pennsylvania on charges that were subsequently dropped. Counsel did not elicit the nature of the charge. On cross-examination, the prosecution inquired as to the charge of arrest, and Cave answered that it was "rape." Cave's counsel did not object.

We interpret Cave's arguments to advance two theories of ineffective assistance based on these facts. First, Cave contends that counsel was deficient for eliciting, in generic terms, the fact of his prior arrest. Alternatively, Cave argues that, even assuming that counsel was not ineffective for eliciting the fact of the prior arrest, counsel was deficient for failing to object when the prosecution inquired as to the nature of that arrest. Given the inflammatory nature of rape accusations, the district court devoted a substantial portion of its order to these arguments. We agree with its conclusions.

a.

With respect to Cave's first theory, the Florida Supreme Court determined that counsel's performance was not deficient, saying:

Cave v. State, 899 So.2d at 1058.

We agree with the district court that the record demonstrates that "the Florida Supreme Court reasonably concluded [Cave's counsel] made a reasonable strategic choice in seeking to establish the `no significant criminal history' mitigator, and in choosing to preemptively bring out Mr. Cave's Pennsylvania arrest." Cave v. McDonough, at *10. The no-significant-criminal-history mitigator was the sole statutory mitigator available to Cave. In fact, in prior litigation, we chastised Cave's counsel for failing to pursue this particular line of mitigation. See Cave v. Singletary, 971 F.2d 1513, 1519 (11th Cir.1992). As the Florida Supreme Court pointed out in its opinion, when a defendant seeks to establish the no-significant-criminal-history mitigator, the prosecution is entitled to rebut the same with direct evidence of criminal activity, including arrests. Cave v. State, 899 So.2d at 1058. It is unclear whether the prosecution had any such "direct evidence" that would have allowed it to introduce the fact of this particular arrest.12 However, in light of this uncertainty, it was not objectively unreasonable for counsel to "draw" the potential "sting" of the rape arrest by pre-emptively eliciting it on direct examination. In fact, counsel testified that by disclosing the arrest to the jury the defense was able to show that Cave had nothing to hide, thereby converting a potentially damaging piece of evidence into a potential asset. Regardless of our opinion, de novo, as to the reasonableness of counsel's strategic choice, this much is clear: the Florida Supreme Court's analysis of this claim was objectively reasonable. Consequently, the district court properly rejected this theory of ineffectiveness.

b.

Turning to Cave's second theory regarding counsel's failure to object, the Florida Supreme Court and the district court both expressed the view that the question was a difficult one. Ultimately, the Florida Supreme Court rejected this claim by determining Cave could not demonstrate the requisite prejudice. It offered this analysis:

Cave v. State, 899 So.2d at 1058-59 (footnote omitted) (citations omitted).

The district court, likewise, gave this claim extended attention. It began by finding, de novo, that counsel rendered constitutionally deficient performance, declaring:

Cave v. McDonough, at *11.

Nevertheless, upon turning to the prejudice prong, the district court determined that Cave was not entitled to habeas relief under AEDPA:

Cave v. McDonough, at *12 (footnote omitted) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We agree with the district court's analysis in its entirety, including its observation that this would be a very difficult question de novo. However, our review is limited to determining whether the state court's decision was unreasonable. That the Florida Supreme Court carefully weighed all the relevant considerations while forming its conclusion speaks to the reasonableness of its result.13 We affirm the district court's judgment that Cave was not entitled to relief on this claim.

C.

For some time prior to the execution of Cave's co-defendant Bush, counsel for Cave and Bush worked together in an attempt to stay Bush's execution so that he could testify to Cave's limited role in the murder at Cave's sentencing. Their efforts were unsuccessful, and Cave's counsel chose not to perpetuate Bush's words via deposition in advance of his execution.

According to testimony from Bush's lawyer at Cave's evidentiary hearing, on the eve of his execution, Bush became distraught because "he felt responsible ... for Mr. Cave's predicament." Bush told his lawyer that—contrary to several previous statements made in pursuit of his own interests—Cave's role in the crime was limited. Bush claimed that co-defendant Parker was "running the show." Just before the murder, Parker apparently announced to the others his intentions of killing the victim, saying that "he was going to do what he had to do." According to Bush, when Cave learned of Parker's intentions, he became upset and tried to convince Parker that the murder was unnecessary. When Parker refused to be swayed, Bush claimed that Cave withdrew from the scene and retreated to the vehicle. After Cave withdrew, Parker instructed Bush to stab the victim—which he did—and Parker killed the victim with a shot to the head.

Bush was executed the next day. Following his execution, Bush's counsel attempted to contact Cave's counsel and communicate the substance of Bush's statement. According to the evidentiary-hearing testimony, Cave's counsel failed to respond to those attempted communications.

Cave argues that his attorney was constitutionally deficient for two reasons. First, Cave argues that his attorney should have deposed Bush before his execution in order to preserve his testimony. Second, Cave argues that counsel was ineffective for failing to learn of Bush's "deathbed" statement and introduce it at sentencing.

The Florida Supreme Court addressed both of these arguments and determined that, even assuming counsel performed deficiently, Cave could not demonstrate Strickland prejudice. Cave v. State, 899 So.2d at 1052. Because Bush's deathbed statement conflicted with two of his prior statements, as well as Cave's own confession and his 1996 sentencing testimony, the Florida Supreme Court concluded that the inconsistencies "would have undermined the credibility of Bush's deathbed statement and could have actually resulted in more harm than benefit." Id.

The district court concluded that the Florida Supreme Court's application of Strickland was reasonable, though it expressed the view that the prejudice inquiry would be a closer one under de novo review. We agree.

Under the prejudice inquiry, it is a post-conviction court's job to re-weigh the evidence of mitigation and aggravation as it would have existed but for counsel's unprofessional conduct. See Sears v. Upton, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 3259, 3266, 177 L.Ed.2d 1025 (2010). Considering the totality of the evidence, we cannot say that the state court's determination was an error beyond "fairminded disagreement." See Richter, 131 S.Ct. at 787. Therefore, we are unable to conclude that the Florida Supreme Court's prejudice determination was unreasonable. We affirm the district court's decision to that effect.14

D.

Cave also argues that his counsel was deficient for failing to object during voir dire when the prosecution inquired of jury members whether they could vote to impose the death penalty even "if it were to be shown that Mr. Cave was not the shooter." Cave argues that this line of questioning was manipulative and prejudicial, in that it implied the possibility that Cave was, in fact, the shooter.

The Florida Supreme Court rejected this claim on the merits, determining that Cave's allegations and the record supported neither a finding of deficient performance nor prejudice. We agree with the district court that there was nothing objectionable in the prosecution's line of questioning. Because "[c]ounsel cannot be labeled ineffective for failing to raise issues which have no merit," Card v. Dugger, 911 F.2d 1494, 1520 (11th Cir.1990), we affirm the district court's determination that the Florida Supreme Court reasonably applied Strickland to this claim.

IV.

Finally, Cave argues that Florida's death penalty scheme and his death sentence are unconstitutional in light of Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002). Cave acknowledges that this argument is foreclosed under controlling precedent, as Ring does not apply retroactively and his death sentence became final before the case was handed down. See Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348, 355-57, 124 S.Ct. 2519, 159 L.Ed.2d 442 (2004). We decline his invitation to revisit this decided issue.

V.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court to deny Cave's application for a writ of habeas corpus in its entirety.

AFFIRMED.

EDMONDSON, Circuit Judge, concurs in the judgment.

HULL, Circuit Judge, specially concurring:

I concur in affirming the judgment of the district court and in Judge Wilson's opinion except for Section II-B. Because Cave's challenge to the state court's factual findings fails under § 2254(d)(2), we need not address § 2254(e)(1). See Wood v. Allen, 558 U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 841, 845, 175 L.Ed.2d 738 (2010) ("We conclude ... that the state court's factual determination was reasonable even under petitioner's reading of § 2254(d)(2), and therefore we need not address that provision's relationship to § 2254(e)(1). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals on that basis."). Neither the district court's decision, nor this Court's decision here, turns on the distinction between the unreasonableness standard in § 2254(d)(2) and the separate clear-and-convincing-evidence standard in § 2254(e)(1). Thus, Section II-B's discussion of § 2254(e)(1) is merely dicta. Just as the United States Supreme Court limited its discussion to § 2254(d)(2) in Wood v. Allen, I would do so here.

Additionally, I am concerned that Section II-B quotes isolated parts of our precedents out of context and incorrectly characterizes what our precedents say, or do not say, about the relationship between § 2254(d)(2) and § 2254(e)(1). The decisions cited in Section II-B speak for themselves and Section II-B's characterization of them does not change what they hold or do not hold.