Michael Wade Nance, a Georgia prisoner sentenced to death, challenged the denial of his federal habeas petition. He argued that the use of a stun belt at his resentencing violated the Constitution and that counsel were ineffective in choosing which mitigating circumstances to present at the penalty phase. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. It held that federal habeas relief was unavailable because the Supreme Court had not clearly established a constitutional rule governing stun belts or a standard for evaluating their use, and circuit precedent could not create that rule for purposes of federal habeas review. The court also rejected the mitigation claim, concluding that counsel had investigated the circumstances and made strategic decisions about presentation rather than failing to investigate. The published opinion is notable because it addresses a rare challenge to strategic mitigation choices, the limits of clearly established federal law, and the treatment of courtroom restraints in capital resentencing proceedings.