The extension of a statute of limitations for sex offenses with minors does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of a petition for habeas corpus and held that the state appellate court’s denial of relief was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application, of clearly established Supreme Court precedent. The court concluded that Penal Code section 803(g), which extended the statute of limitations for sex offenses with minors, was not a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause under Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003). Contrary to the facts in Stogner, the statute in question in this action was enacted while the limitations periods were still running on the case against petitioner. The court also rejected petitioner’s contentions that: (1) the conditions for invoking § 803(g) must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) that his due process rights were violated by admitting evidence of his other bad acts; (3) that it was prejudicial prosecutorial misconduct to refer to stricken testimony by the victim’s mother during closing argument; (4) that petitioner was prejudiced by trial counsel’s ineffective assistance; and (5) that there was cumulative error.