literally refer to the possibility for rehabilitation. Finally, the jury instructions unambiguously permitted consideration of any mitigating evidence, unlike the recent situation in Payton, 299 F.3d at 824 (invalidating earlier jury instructions as too vague to guarantee that the jury considered post-conviction rehabilitation). Taken as a whole, there is no “reasonable likelihood” that the jury was prevented from considering constitutionally relevant evidence. Id. at 823 (quoting Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370, 380, 110 S.Ct. 1190, 108 L.Ed.2d 316 (1990)). VI Finally, Beardslee argues that the cumulative impact of multiple errors entitles him to relief. The district court did not rule on this claim, though it is cognizable. See Karis v. Calderon, 283 F.3d 1117, 1132 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Ceja v. Stewart, 97 F.3d 1246, 1254 (9th
recognizing possibility of problems but holding there was no rule 403 violation in admitting statistics recognizing that the possibility of a tradeoff between merits relief and attorneys fees is often implicit in class action settlement negotiations holding that apparent eligibility exists where the record raises a reasonable possibility that the petitioner may be eligible for relief recognizing the possibility that a defendant could have been prejudiced by the actual conduct of a codefendants defense recognizing the possibility but denying relief