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
holding that beyond reasonable doubt standard not required in termination cases 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 holding that harmless beyond a reasonable doubt analysis not applicable in habeas cases holding that in order to conclude that federal constitutional error is harmless court must find that error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt 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