is not contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, any clearly established Supreme Court law because the Supreme Court has never held that a defendant’s right to due process is violated when a conspiracy instruction does not explicitly list which overt acts the prosecution believes were taken in furtherance of the charged conspiracy. See Holley v. Yarborough, 568 F.3d 1091, 1101 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Absent such ‘clearly established Federal law,’ we cannot conclude that the state court’s ruling was an ‘unreasonable application.’ ”). Even absent the conspiracy instruction, the jury necessarily found that Lunsford had committed at least one act in furtherance of the conspiracy when it convicted her of the murder count. United States v. Baldwin, 987 F.2d 1432, 1438 (9th Cir. 1993) (<HOLDING>). 4. Lunsford also argues that she was deprived
holding that instructional errors that are trial errors are subject to harmless error analysis holding that error is not harmless if the defendant contested the omitted element and raised evidence to support a contrary finding holding that instructional error on missing element is harmless if no rational jury could have found the defendant  guilty of violating the statute without also making the proper finding as to the missing element holding that when the jury finds facts that are so closely related to the omitted element that no rational jury could find those facts without also finding the omitted element this exercise amounts to the functional equivalent of the omitted element holding that an instructional error is harmless if no rational jury could have made its findings without also finding the omitted  fact to be true