Steven Joseph KALLO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Silvia H. GARCIA, Warden, Respondent-Appellee, 234 F. App'x 756

MEMORANDUM 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 of[] 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”). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.