S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996). Finally, the district court correctly held that Reed’s waiver of counsel claim was procedurally defaulted, because he did not raise it at the state court level. Castillo, 399 F.3d at 1000. Third, Reed argues that the trial court erred in allowing the introduction of evidence of his involvement in a separate robbery of a Best Buy store. In order to successfully challenge the trial court’s evidentiary decision through a federal habeas petition, Reed must show a denial of due process. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991). Reed has not made this showing because there were many permissible inferences that the jury could draw from his involvement in the robbery. See Leavitt v. Arave, 383 F.3d 809, 829 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). Fourth, Reed argues that his right to testify
holding that to establish a violation of due process an alien must show that she was denied a full and fair opportunity to present her claims internal quotation marks omitted holding that due process is violated if evidence of prior bad acts goes only to character and there are no permissible inferences the jury may draw from it internal quotation marks omitted holding that a foreign entity without property or presence in this country has no constitutional rights under the due process clause or otherwise internal quotation marks omitted holding that exclusion of experts opinion is proper only if it is so fundamentally unsupported that it can offer no assistance to the jury internal quotation omitted holding that on clear error review appellate court cannot secondguess the trial courts choice between permissible competing inferences internal quotation marks and ellipses omitted