Case Name: Jesus ESPINOZA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Stuart J. RYAN, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-01
Citations: 373 F. App'x 669
Docket Number: No. 07-55120
Parties: Jesus ESPINOZA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Stuart J. RYAN, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 373
Pages: 669–669

Head Matter:
Jesus ESPINOZA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Stuart J. RYAN, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 07-55120.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 16, 2010.
Filed April 1, 2010.
Leonard Chaitin, Esq., Leonard Chaitin Law Offices, Santa Clarita, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Roy C. Preminger, Esq., Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Jesus Espinoza appeals from the district court's judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Espinoza contends that the trial court violated his due process rights by mis-instructing the jury regarding the elements of voluntary manslaughter. We agree with the district court that the instructional error did not have a "substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict." See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 623, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.