discussed Cited "see" Woods v. Adams See Arredondo v. Ortiz, 365 F.3d at 783 (citing Williams v. Borg, 139 F.3d 737, 741 (9th Cir.1998) [rejecting a defendant’s attempt to “elevate to a constitutional level the distinction between cross-examination on collateral and non-collateral matters”]), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 892 , 125 S.Ct. 102 , 160 L.Ed.2d 156 (2004).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." Sintay v. Martel Banks I, 536 U.S. at 272 , 122 S.Ct. at 2151 ; Bohlen, 510 U.S. at 389 , 114 S.Ct. at 953 ; see also Arredondo v. Ortiz, 365 F.3d 778, 781-82 (9th Cir.) (“[A]t a minimum Teague should be identified as an issue (indeed, the first issue) ..., the new rule of constitutional law that falls within its proscription should be articulated, the reasons why such a rule would not have been compelled by existing precedent should be explained with particular reference to the appropriate universe of precedent, and an argument should be made why the rule contended for is not within one of Teague’s except…

discussed Cited "see, e.g." SINTAY v. Martel Banks I, 536 U.S. at 272 , 122 S.Ct. at 2151 ; Bohlen, 510 U.S. at 389 , 114 S.Ct. at 953 ; see also Arredondo v. Ortiz, 365 F.3d 778, 781-82 (9th Cir.) ("[A]t a minimum Teague should be identified as an issue (indeed, the first issue). . ., the new rule of constitutional law that falls within its proscription should be articulated, the reasons why such a rule would not have been compelled by existing precedent should be explained with particular reference to the appropriate universe of precedent, and an argument should be made why the rule contended for is not within one of Teague 's exceptio…