Opinion
No. 06-15063.
Argued and Submitted October 17, 2006.
Filed July 9, 2007.
Victor S. Haltom, Esq., Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Julia L. Bancroft, Justain P. Riley, DAG, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Lawrence K. Karlton, Senior Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-02-00104-LKK.
Before: BRUNETTI, O'SCANNLAIN, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The state court's conclusion that any constitutional infirmities in the original version of CALJIC 2.50.01 were cured by the supplementary proviso was not "contrary to" or "an unreasonable application off] clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). The district court properly denied habeas relief. See id.
Kallo's constitutional challenge to the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act is without merit. See Crater v. Galaza, 491 F.3d 1119, 2007 WL 1965122 (9th Cir. 2007) (explaining the constitutional validity of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)); Duhaime v. Ducharme, 200 F.3d 597, 601 (9th Cir. 2000) (concluding that "§ 2254(d)(1) does not suffer from any Article III constitutional infirmities").