context: The district court held that, because this claim is foreclosed by clear precedent, the state court's rejection of it was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.parenthetical: parole eligibility instruction required "only ... [in] instances where, as a legal matter, there is no possibility of parole if the jury decides the appropriate sentence is life in prison"
citation_a.sentence: See Ramdass v. Angelone, 530 U.S. 156, 169, 120 S.Ct. 2113, 147 L.Ed.2d 125 (2000) (parole eligibility instruction required “only ... [in] instances where, as a legal matter, there is no possibility of parole if the jury decides the appropriate sentence is life in prison”); see also Elizalde v. Dretke, 362 F.3d 323, 332-33 (5th Cir.2004) (collecting cases holding that Constitution does not require Texas trial courts to instruct juries as to the meaning of life in prison because the defendant would not, if sentenced to life imprisonment, be ineligible for parole).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 362 F.3d 323, 332-33
citation_b.parenthetical: collecting cases holding that Constitution does not require Texas trial courts to instruct juries as to the meaning of life in prison because the defendant would not, if sentenced to life imprisonment, be ineligible for parole
citation_b.sentence: See Ramdass v. Angelone, 530 U.S. 156, 169, 120 S.Ct. 2113, 147 L.Ed.2d 125 (2000) (parole eligibility instruction required “only ... [in] instances where, as a legal matter, there is no possibility of parole if the jury decides the appropriate sentence is life in prison”); see also Elizalde v. Dretke, 362 F.3d 323, 332-33 (5th Cir.2004) (collecting cases holding that Constitution does not require Texas trial courts to instruct juries as to the meaning of life in prison because the defendant would not, if sentenced to life imprisonment, be ineligible for parole).