Sterling

MEMORANDUM *

Daniel Sterling (“Sterling”) appeals from the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition. The district court held that (1) the California state court’s use of pattern jury instruction CALJIC 2.50.02 did not violate Sterling’s federal due process rights, and (2) the combined impact of CALJIC 2.50.02 and Cal. Evid.Code § 1109 did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

I

Sterling first argues that CALJIC 2.50.02 allowed the jury to convict him based solely upon finding by a preponderance of the evidence that he had previously engaged in uncharged acts of domestic violence in New York. We find no error sufficient to grant habeas relief.

A challenged jury instruction justifies habeas relief if the “instruction by itself so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.” Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 72 , 112 S.Ct. 475 , 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). “It is well established that the instruction ‘may not be judged in artificial isolation,’ but must be considered in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record.”…