Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8641883
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Kallo v. Garcia
No. 8641883 · Decided July 9, 2007
No. 8641883·Ninth Circuit · 2007·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
July 9, 2007
Citation
No. 8641883
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM * The state court’s conclusion that any constitutional infirmities in the original version of CALJIC 2.50.01 were cured by the supplementary proviso was not “contrary to” or “an unreasonable application of[] clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). The district court properly denied habeas relief. See id. Kallo’s constitutional challenge to the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act is without merit. See Crater v. Galaza, 491 F.3d 1119 , 2007 WL 1965122 (9th Cir.2007) (explaining the constitutional validity of 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1)); Duhaime v. Ducharme, 200 F.3d 597, 601 (9th Cir.2000) (concluding that “ § 2254(d)(1) does not suffer from any Article III constitutional infirmities”). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM * The state court’s conclusion that any constitutional infirmities in the original version of CALJIC 2.50.01 were cured by the supplementary proviso was not “contrary to” or “an unreasonable application of[] clearly established F
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM * The state court’s conclusion that any constitutional infirmities in the original version of CALJIC 2.50.01 were cured by the supplementary proviso was not “contrary to” or “an unreasonable application of[] clearly established F
02Kallo’s constitutional challenge to the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act is without merit.
03Galaza, 491 F.3d 1119 , 2007 WL 1965122 (9th Cir.2007) (explaining the constitutional validity of 28 U.S.C.
04Ducharme, 200 F.3d 597, 601 (9th Cir.2000) (concluding that “ § 2254(d)(1) does not suffer from any Article III constitutional infirmities”).
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM * The state court’s conclusion that any constitutional infirmities in the original version of CALJIC 2.50.01 were cured by the supplementary proviso was not “contrary to” or “an unreasonable application of[] clearly established F
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Kallo v. Garcia in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on July 9, 2007.
Use the citation No. 8641883 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.