Rayford

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Eugene Ray-ford appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a). Reviewing de novo, Alvarado v. Hill, 252 F.3d 1066, 1068 (9th Cir.2001), we affirm.

Rayford raises several federal constitutional claims concerning his conviction for first-degree murder. We address these claims in turn.

The admission of Bridget Prines’s testimony did not violate due process because the evidence was relevant for permissible, non-character purposes and was not unduly prejudicial. See Jammal v. Van de Kamp, 926 F.2d 918, 920 (9th Cir.1991) (“Only if there are no permissible inferences the jury may draw from the evidence can its admission violate due process.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Because this was not a capital case, no federal constitutional issue is presented by the trial court’s failure to instruct sua sponte on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense. See Windham v. Merkle, 163 F.3d 1092, 1106 (9th Cir.1998). *344 In addition, no federal constitutional error occurred when the trial court failed to give a specific instruction on…