Melonzi

MEMORANDUM *

1. To determine whether Melonzi’s federal claims are proeedurally defaulted for purposes of federal habeas review, we look to the last reasoned state court judgment that denied his claims, in this case the opinion of the California Court of Appeal. Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 803 , 111 S.Ct. 2590 , 115 L.Ed.2d 706 (1991). Because the California decision fairly appears to rest primarily upon, or be interwoven with, federal law, and because it did not clearly and expressly rely on a state procedural bar to dispose of Melonzi’s claims, those claims are not proeedurally barred. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 735 , 111 S.Ct. 2546 , 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991); Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 263 , 109 S.Ct. 1038 , 103 L.Ed.2d 308 (1989).

2. The district court did not err by denying Melonzi’s petition with respect to his due process claim, because the California Court of Appeal’s decision is not “contrary to,” or “an unreasonable application of,” the clearly established rule that Melonzi be informed of the charges against him, and apprised of what he must be *495 prepared to meet at trial. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d); Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 763 , 82 S.Ct.…