defendant] ... planned to kill more than one person, and had a callous disregard for human life.” Id. We are bound by Ramsey and therefore conclude that no constitutional error resulted from the depravity of mind instruction used in Harris’s case. In fact, during Harris’s direct appeal, Missouri’s Supreme Court compared the instruction used in Harris’s case to the “nearly identical instruction” it had previously found constitutionally sound in Ramsey’s case. Harris, 870 S.W.2d at 813 (discussing State v. Ramsey, 864 S.W.2d 320, 328 (Mo.1993) (en banc)). Moreover, even assuming that the instruction is unconstitutionally vague, we believe, like the district court, any resulting error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Williams v. Clarke, 40 F.3d 1529, 1540, 1541 (8th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1033, 115 S.Ct. 1397,
holding that appellate court should review error in trial procedure to determine if it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt holding that in order to conclude that federal constitutional error is harmless court must find that error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt holding that federal appellate courts are authorized to engage in constitutional harmless error analysis in the first instance when a state appellate court does not undertake such an analysis and that such error must be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt recognizing that where the error involved defies analysis by harmless error standards or the data is insufficient to conduct a meaningful harmless error analysis then the error will not be proven harmless beyond a reasonable doubt holding that harmless beyond a reasonable doubt analysis not applicable in habeas cases