Was instructing the Jury with CALJIC No. 2.15 in error

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Was instructing the Jury with CALJIC No. 2.15 in error.and denied the Petitioner "Due Process" of Federal Constitutional Demensions.Because he was being charged a, Capitol Murder offense.And his actual possession of stolen property : was in conflict.And permitted the jury to infer guilt of the Cappitol Murder,on findings which furnished no rational inference of guilt. And to do so,was Constitutionally impermissible. Pursuant to the recent ruling in Hall v.Haws, 861 F.3d 977(9th cir.2017).And did Trial Court denial of yhe pretrial motion for Severence of the Capitol murder case.Only serve to compound the denial of the ' Petitioner's right to a fair trial, pursuant to the Recent California Supreme Court case in People v. Anderson,5 Cal.5th 372,235 Cal.Rptr.3d 1. II Did the District Court err by dissmissing Petitioners F.R.C.P. section 60 (b)(6) motion for reconsideration,on the grounds it was a "successive Petition". In which said Motion was based on the recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Hals v.Haws,supra. In which changed the decisional law used to deny the claim in Petitioners Original Federal Habeas Petition. Contrary to the holdings in Gonzalez v. Crosby,545 U.S. 524,528(2005) and Phelps v. Alameida, 569 F.3d 1120(9th cir.2009). IItl “Did the Petitioner meet the requirments set forth in this Courts decisions in Miller-el v. Cockrell ,537 U.S. 322,122 S.ct.1028 (2003). By his demostration that Jurist of reason could disagree and conclude the issue deserve encouragement to proceed further.