Case Name: Jose Mauricio CALDERON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. R.A. CASTRO, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-10-20
Citations: 78 F. App'x 621
Docket Number: No. 02-55725; D.C. No. CV-99-00396-SVW
Parties: Jose Mauricio CALDERON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. R.A. CASTRO, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before REINHARDT, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 78
Pages: 621–622

Head Matter:
Jose Mauricio CALDERON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. R.A. CASTRO, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 02-55725.
D.C. No. CV-99-00396-SVW.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Oct. 8, 2003.
Decided Oct. 20, 2003.
Jose Mauricio Calderon, Susanville, CA, pro se.
Stephen Lathrop, Torrance, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Marc J. Nolan, Ana R. Duarte, Esq., AGCA—Office of the California Attorney General (LA), Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before REINHARDT, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Appellant Jose Mauricio Calderon asserts that his due process rights were violated because the jury instructions did not mirror his "antecedent threat" defense. However, the panoply of self-defense instructions given by the trial court adequately covered Calderon's theory in light of the evidence presented. See Duckett v. Godinez, 67 F.3d 734, 746 (9th Cir.1995).
The prosecutorial misconduct claim was not included in the certificate of appealability, and is not before us. See Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1103 (9th Cir.1999).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.