Torres

MEMORANDUM *

California state prisoner Jose Manuel Torres appeals 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, and we affirm.

Torres contends that the state trial court violated his due process rights by admitting evidence of an uncharged prior act of sexual molestation pursuant to California Evidence Code § 1108. 1 We disagree.

Federal courts can grant federal habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 only if the state court’s decision is 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); see also Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 70-71 , 123 S.Ct. 1166 , 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003). The United States Supreme Court has never held that either the specific jury instruction used here (CALJIC 2.50.01) or the use of prior similar crimes to show propensity in a sexual offense case violates due process. In fact, the United States Supreme Court has expressly declined to rule on the constitutionality of the use of propensity evidence. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 , 75 n. 5, 112 S.Ct. 475 , 116 L.Ed.2d…