With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". has not identified any independent due process right to have the jury correctly instructed on all lesser-included offenses. The Ninth Circuit has long rejected this type of habeas claim in non- capital cases, because the United States Supreme Court has expressly left this issue undecided. See Solis v. Garcia, 219 F.3d 922, 928 (9th Cir. 2000). Even assuming such a claim existed, the California Court of Appeal found no error in the disputed instructions. People v. Luis, B240741, 2013 WL 4223695, at *11 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 13, 2013). Moreover, the California Court of Appeal determined that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. Luis has not demonstrated that these conclusions were unreasonable. See Davis v. Ayala, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2187, 2198-99, 192 L.Ed.2d 323 (2015) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. ** This disposition is not

A: holding that one of our prior panel precedents about when criminal filing deadlines are jurisdictional was abrogated by bowles v russell 551 us 205 127 sct 2360 168 led2d 96 2007 even though bowles dealt with civil filing deadlines
B: holding that beyond reasonable doubt standard not required in termination cases
C: holding that harmless beyond a reasonable doubt analysis not applicable in habeas cases
D: holding that where a state court applies the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard a federal court may not award habeas relief under  2254 unless the harmlessness determination itself was unreasonable emphasis in original quoting fry v pliler 551 us 112 119 127 sct 2321 168 led2d 16 2007
D.