Arthur Longworth v. Robert Wright

50 F.3d 15 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Arthur LONGWORTH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert WRIGHT, Respondent-Appellee. No. 94-35664. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted March 21, 1995. * Decided March 23, 1995. Before: SNEED, POOLE, and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Arthur Longworth, a Washington state prisoner, appeals the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 habeas petition. Following a jury trial, Longworth was convicted of aggravated first degree murder and sentenced to a term of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Longworth contends that a jury instruction so infected his entire trial that it deprived him of his constitutional right to due process. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2253 . We review de novo, Sanders v. Ratelle, 21 F.3d 1446, 1451 (9th Cir.1994), and affirm. 3 Federal courts cannot grant habeas relief for mere state law errors. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S.…