Case Name: Steven LEE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Mike EVANS, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-05-21
Citations: 325 F. App'x 600
Docket Number: No. 07-56185
Parties: Steven LEE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Mike EVANS, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 325
Pages: 600–600

Head Matter:
Steven LEE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Mike EVANS, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 07-56185.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 12, 2009.
Filed May 21, 2009.
Steven Lee, Soledad, CA, pro se.
Robert David Breton, Esquire, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appel-lee.
Before: PREGERSON, CANBY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Steven Lee appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Lee contends that the the trial court's inclusion of extraneous documents with the written jury instructions deprived him of his constitutional right to due process. We conclude that the state court's determination that there is no evidence that the documents were given to the jury was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2), (e)(1); Gonzalez v. Duncan, 551 F.3d 875, 879 (9th Cir.2008).
Lee also contends that the trial court violated his right to due process by allowing the state to amend the information to add additional allegations of prior-strike convictions. There is no clearly established U.S. Supreme Court authority supporting Lee's claim of error. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000); Davis v. Woodford, 446 F.3d 957, 963 (9th Cir.2006).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.