they alone could decide the weight and importance of each factor and any single factor could justify a life sentence. See Claim 7a above. The record fairly supports the California Supreme Court’s summary denial of this claim. Claim 18a is denied on the merits. (2)SUBCLAIM b: FACTOR (b) Hamilton contends § 190.3(b), prior criminal activity which used or threatened violence, is vague and overbroad since it can be interpreted either to only apply to prior acts or to include the subject murder. This argument, that the jury should have been instructed the violent criminal activity referred to in (b) excludes the circumstance of the subject crime, thus preventing double counting, of the guilt phase offense in both (a) and (b), is foreclosed by Tuilaepa, 512 U.S. at 976-77, 114 S.Ct. 2630 (<HOLDING>). See Bonin, 59 F.3d at 848. The record fairly
holding factor b is not unconstitutionally vague holding that  2320 as a whole is not unconstitutionally vague holding that attorney disciplinary rule was unconstitutionally vague as applied holding that exceptional depravity is unconstitutionally vague holding that essentially equivalent is unconstitutionally vague