Bonner

*999 MEMORANDUM **

Roger Earl Bonner (“Bonner”) appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. Bonner claims that the district court erred in finding: 1) his claim relating to substitution of an alternate juror was procedurally defaulted; 2) his trial counsel was not ineffective; and 3) the trial court’s instructions to the jury were not unconstitutionally misleading or confusing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

We review de novo a district court’s decision to grant or deny a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . See Benn v. Lambert, 283 F.3d 1040, 1051 (9th Cir.2002). A court may grant habeas relief to a person in state custody only if the state court proceedings: (1) “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States;” or (2) “resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1), (2).

First, a petitioner must fully exhaust his claims in state court before filing a…