his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. Dixon contends that the jury instructions given in his case failed to meaningfully distinguish between premeditated and unpremeditated attempted murder and thereby deprived him of due process. We conclude that the California Court of Appeal’s decision rejecting this claim was not contrary to, and did not involve an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. See Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476, 483, 113 S.Ct. 2194, 124 L.Ed.2d 436 (1993) (recognizing that federal courts “are bound by a state court’s construction of a state statute”); People v. Osband, 13 Cal.4th 622, 697, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 26, 919 P.2d 640 (Cal.1996) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the district court properly
holding that with respect to premeditation and deliberation the test is not time but reflection thoughts may follow each other with great rapidity and cold calculated judgment may be arrived at quickly recognizing that subject matter jurisdiction can be questioned at any time and with respect to any claim holding that summary judgment should be denied where the moving party does not show that there is no genuine dispute as to a material fact with respect to each essential element of the claim holding that parties to an arbitration agreement need not equally bind each other with respect to an arbitration agreement if they have provided each other with consideration beyond the promise to arbitrate holding statute of limitations is jurisdictional and may be raised at any time but noting other ohio appellate courts have held the statute of limitations is not jurisdictional and may be waived if not asserted at the trial level