
    Ricky Lee COBBS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tom L. CAREY, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 06-16047.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 24, 2008.
    
    Filed Dec. 2, 2008.
    Ricky Lee Cobbs, Jr., Vacaville, CA, pro se.
    Catherine G. Tennant, Esq., Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Ricky Lee Cobbs, Jr. appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, challenging his conviction and sentence for murder and street terrorism. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.

Cobbs contends that: (1) the trial court erred by denying his request for a “claim of right” jury instruction; (2) there was insufficient evidence that the murder was the natural and probable consequence of his unarmed assault of the victim; (3) the trial court erred by denying his request for a jury instruction stating that the shooting was not a natural and probable consequence of the assault if it was the independent act of one of the participants; (4) the jury instructions improperly permitted the jury to consider whether the crime of murder in the abstract is a natural and probable consequence of the crime of assault in the abstract; (5) the natural and probable consequences doctrine violates due process because it permits conviction based on ordinary negligence; (6) the natural and probable consequences doctrine creates an unconstitutional presumption of the presence of malice; (7) the trial court erred by admitting certain expert testimony; (8) the trial court erred by denying his motion to strike his prior juvenile adjudication; and (9) his due process rights were violated by the trial court’s failure to conduct a continuous preliminary hearing.

We conclude that the state court’s decision rejecting these claims was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Lackawanna v. Coss, 582 U.S. 394, 121 S.Ct. 1567, 149 L.Ed.2d 608 (2001); Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 72, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Windham v. Merkle, 163 F.3d 1092, 1103 (9th Cir.1998).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     