Arrasmith

MEMORANDUM **

Kenneth Arrasmith appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We review de novo the district court’s decision to deny a habeas petition. Slovik v. Yates, 545 F.3d 1181, 1185 (9th Cir.2008). We also review de novo a claim dismissed as procedurally defaulted. Cassett v. Stew *932 art, 406 F.3d 614, 620 (9th Cir.2005). We affirm the district court.

The facts of the case are known to the parties and we do not repeat them here.

I

Arrasmith argues that the state court’s decision on his Brady claims involves an “unreasonable application” of Supreme Court precedent. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). We disagree. The undisclosed handguns would not have been favorable to Arrasmith’s self-defense claim because the handguns were found in closed containers away from the victims’ bodies and had not been recently handled. See United States v. Jernigan, 492 F.3d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir.2007). The undisclosed handguns would also not have been favorable to Arrasmith’s request for a voluntary manslaughter instruction because the handguns are irrelevant to Arrasmith’s theory of the case, no evidence…