Randolph K. Reeves was convicted of two counts of felony murder and sentenced to death by the State of Nebraska. His convictions and sentences were affirmed by the Nebraska Supreme Court both on appeal and in postconviction actions. The United States *1426Supreme Court vacated the state supreme court’s postconviction decision and remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Supreme Court decisions. On remand, after hearing argument from both sides, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed Reeves’ death sentences. Reeves then petitioned the federal district court for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court granted the writ and the state appeals. We reverse in part and remand.
I. BACKGROUND
In the early morning hours of March 29, 1980, Randy Reeves killed Janet Mesner and Victoria Lamm. Reeves, a construction worker idled by a rainy day, had begun drinking the previous day at 8:00 or 9:00 a.m., and continued drinking at various locales until after midnight. At Reeves’ last stop, he ingested some peyote buttons, and, according to friends, was in a near stupor when he left to go visit Ms. Mesner, the live-in caretaker of the Quaker meetinghouse. Ms. Mesner and Reeves1 were distantly related, both of the Quaker faith, and had been good friends all of their lives. They had never had any sort of romantic relationship.
Evidently, Reeves climbed into the meetinghouse through a kitchen window, obtained a kitchen knife, went upstairs and assaulted Ms. Mesner in her bedroom. Ms. Mesner was stabbed seven times. Ms. Lamm, who was visiting with her young daughter, walked in on the struggle and was also stabbed by Reeves. Ms. Lamm’s wounds were almost immediately fatal, but Ms. Mesner was able to make her way downstairs to summon help. Police found Ms. Mesner still conscious. She identified her attacker as Reeves, expressing shock and disbelief that he would do such a thing to her and Ms. Lamm.
Police found Ms. Mesner’s bedroom in a shambles, indicating a great struggle. There, they discovered Reeves’ underwear, sock, and billfold. Soon thereafter, police found Reeves walking across a major thoroughfare, covered with blood, his fly undone and his genitals exposed. Reeves was arrested and given Miranda warnings. He waived his rights and made no attempt to deny his actions. Reeves stated that he was too drunk to remember much, but that he did remember stabbing and raping Ms. Mesner.
Reeves’ blood alcohol level was .149 when it was tested approximately three hours after the assault. According to trial testimony, Reeves’ blood alcohol level may have been as high as .230 at the time of the crimes. There was conflicting testimony as to whether the peyote buttons he ingested would have exaggerated or counteracted the effects of the alcohol, but, either way, there is no doubt that Reeves’ capacity to appreciate what he was doing was grossly impaired by his voluntary drug and alcohol abuse on the night of the murders.
At trial, Reeves did not dispute that he committed the crimes. Rather he argued that he was not guilty either because he did not have the ability to form the requisite intent, or, because he was insane at the time of the murders. The jury found Reeves guilty of both counts of felony murder, and a three-judge sentencing panel subsequently imposed the death penalty on each count. On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court found that the sentencing panel had improperly applied one aggravating circumstance and had improperly failed to apply one mitigating circumstance in determining Reeves’ sentences. State v. Reeves, 216 Neb. 206, 344 N.W.2d 433, 447-48 (Reeves I), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1028, 105 S.Ct. 447, 83 L.Ed.2d 372 (1984). Nonetheless, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the death sentences. Id. 344 N.W.2d at 449.
Reeves subsequently filed a state postcon-viction action, which raised arguments as to the propriety of the aggravating circumstances applied by the sentencing panel. The Nebraska Supreme Court found that those concerns had been adequately addressed in Reeves’ direct appeal and refused to reconsider them. State v. Reeves, 234 Neb. 711, 453 N.W.2d 359, 385-86 (Reeves II), vacated, 498 U.S. 964, 111 S.Ct. 425, 112 L.Ed.2d 409 (1990). The United States Supreme Court vacated Reeves II and remanded for reconsideration in view of its recent Clemons decision, a case in which the Court *1427outlined the types of appellate reweighing of the factors underlying a death sentence that were constitutionally unobjectionable, state law permitting. Reeves v. Nebraska, 498 U.S. 964, 111 S.Ct. 425, 112 L.Ed.2d 409 (1990). In response, the Nebraska Supreme Court, explicitly relying on its own precedent, reexamined and reweighed the aggravating and mitigating circumstances applied in Reeves’ sentencings in a manner it deemed permissible under Clemons. State v. Reeves, 239 Neb. 419, 476 N.W.2d 829, 835 (Neb.1991) (Reeves III), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 837, 113 S.Ct. 114, 121 L.Ed.2d 71 (1992). As a result of that reweighing, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed Reeves’ death sentences.
Reeves then filed a petition for habeas corpus in federal district court. The district court granted the writ as to sentencing, agreeing with Reeves’ claim that the Nebraska Supreme Court’s reweighing of the aggravating and mitigating factors in his case was not authorized by state law, and therefore violated his right to be sentenced by due process of law. Having found the reweighing unauthorized, the district court did not consider or resolve Reeves’ other objections to his death sentences. The district court did consider and deny relief on several trial claims, including Reeves’ claim that, considering the state of the evidence, the state trial court’s failure to instruct the jurors on any lesser noncapital offense, and thereby give the jury an alternative to capital conviction or acquittal, violated his due process rights.
The State of Nebraska appeals the grant of the writ. Reeves appeals the district court’s denial of relief as to his claim that he was entitled to an instruction on at least one lesser noncapital offense.2
II. DISCUSSION
A. Reweighing by the State Supreme Court
The district court’s decision to grant the writ rests on two prongs: 1) our deeision v. (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 967, 113 S.Ct. 2950, 124 L.Ed.2d 697 (1993); and 2) the district court’s exhaustive independent examination of Nebraska statutory law. The district court properly concluded that, under Rust (and under Clemons v. Mississippi, 494 U.S. 738, 110 S.Ct. 1441, 108 L.Ed.2d 725 (1990), for that matter), state appellate court reweighing of the factors underlying a death sentence is permissible only if state law allows it. However, the district court erred in dismissing the Nebraska Supreme Court’s assertion of authority to reweigh as an incorrect interpretation of Nebraska law.
The Nebraska Supreme Court is the final arbiter of Nebraska law. Once that court has asserted its authority to reweigh based on its own practice, our only concern is whether the resultant configuration of state law results in a scheme that violates federal constitutional rights. See Clemons, 494 U.S. at 746-48, 110 S.Ct. at 1447-48 (state supreme court’s assertion of authority to reweigh, based on its past practice, defeats petitioner’s assertion of unqualified state law right to have all factfinding and weighing done by initial sentencer only); see also Hicks v. Oklahoma, 447 U.S. 343, 100 S.Ct. 2227, 65 L.Ed.2d 175 (1980) (due process is violated when state appellate court admits it is without authority to cure a void sentence, but affirms such sentence nonetheless). In this case, the Nebraska Supreme Court based its assertion of authority on its own past practice and its interpretation of Clemons. Reeves III, 476 N.W.2d at 835. By performing an exhaustive review of Nebraska statutory law in an attempt to show the Nebraska Supreme Court the inadequacy of its interpretation of its own authority under its own law, the district court exceeded the bounds of federal court authority. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68, 112 S.Ct. 475, 479-80, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991) (it is not the province of federal courts to reexamine state court determinations of state law questions).
*1428As far as the federal constitution is concerned, in a weighing jurisdiction,3 a state appellate court may cure a constitutional deficiency arising from improper applications or limitations of aggravating or mitigating circumstances in a capital case by engaging either in reweighing, or in traditional harmless error analysis. Clemons, 494 U.S. at 754, 110 S.Ct. at 1451. “Reweighing,” in the ease of a sentence tainted by improper application of an aggravating factor, may be accomplished in one of two ways. The state appellate court may jettison the improper factor and weigh only the remaining aggravating and mitigating factors.4 Or, that court may apply a corrected definition of an impermissible factor and include it in the balance. Id. at 751, 110 S.Ct. at 1449. What an appellate court in a “weighing” state may not do under the guise of “reweighing” is to create an automatic rule that a death sentence will be upheld as long as one valid aggravating circumstance remains. Id. at 751-52, 110 S.Ct. at 1449-50.
Because Nebraska is a weighing state, it may, state law permitting, constitutionally cure a death sentence tainted by the improper application of an aggravating factor by reweighing. The district court based its belief to the contrary on its independent interpretation of Nebraska law and on Rust v. Hopkins, 984 F.2d at 1486. As noted, the district court exceeded the bounds of its authority in rejecting the Nebraska Supreme Court’s interpretation of Nebraska law. The district court also misread Rust.
In Rust, we addressed a very limited and unique situation. We were faced with a death sentence which had been imposed under a wrong and too lenient burden of proof. Rust, 984 F.2d at 1489, 1493. The Nebraska Supreme Court attempted to cure that grave error by applying the correct and more rigorous “beyond a reasonable doubt” burden on direct appeal. Id. at 1492. Relying on Hicks v. Oklahoma, 447 U.S. 343, 100 S.Ct. 2227, 65 L.Ed.2d 175 (1980), we found that such a procedure violated due process because Rust had the right to have a three-judge sentencing panel (which we analogized to the jury in Hicks) find the relevant facts and impose his sentence in the first instance. Rust, 984 F.2d at 1493. Because a less rigorous burden of proof had been used below, there were no facts found for the Nebraska Supreme Court to review, and no death sentence for it to cure. Id. We found that under Nebraska’s capital sentencing scheme, appellate factfinding and sentencing in the first instance amounted to an arbitrary and capricious disregard of state law, and deprived Rust of his liberty interest in his life without due process of law. Id.; see Hicks, 447 U.S. at 345-47, 100 S.Ct. at 2228-30.
We further found that conducting an initial sentencing proceeding on appeal, after “the entire first tier of the sentencing process was invalid[ated],” deprived Rust of his right to independent appellate review of his sentence (because, there was, in essence, no sentence, not just & flawed sentence, to review). Rust, 984 F.2d at 1493 (emphasis added). Because we interpreted Supreme Court precedent to require appellate review of capital sentences to prevent unconstitutionally arbitrary and capricious infliction of the death penalty, we found that the initial appellate sentencing carried out in Rust’s case also violated due process. Id.
However, in Rust we also recognized that the United States Supreme Court had explicitly found nothing constitutionally objectionable in state appellate courts making those findings of fact, even in the first instance, which are necessary to assure that Eighth Amendment capital sentencing channeling concerns are satisfied. Id.; see Clemons, 494 U.S. at 745-46, 110 S.Ct. at 1446-47. We therefore limited our Rust decision, very carefully stating that “[a state] appellate *1429court is fully competent to ‘cure’ some sentencing deficiencies in capital cases.” Rust, 984 F.2d at 1493. We explained that Clemons applied to minor errors such as “improper consideration of an invalid aggravating circumstance,” but not to entirely void sen-tencings requiring completely new factfind-ings. Id. at 1493-95. Nowhere in Rust did we intimate that Nebraska could not, consistent with due process, reweigh aggravating and mitigating circumstances to cure “minor” sentencing errors such as those in issue in Clemons. Nor did we intimate, as indeed in view of Clemons we could not, that such reweighing would amount to a deprivation of a defendant’s right to appeal his sentence.5 As we have stated in other cases, whether the Nebraska Supreme Court will engage, or has the authority to engage, in reweighing in circumstances similar to those presented in Clemons is a question of state law which only it can decide.6 See Moore v. Clarke, 951 F.2d 895, 897 (8th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 930, 112 S.Ct. 1995, 118 L.Ed.2d 591 (1992); Harper v. Grammer, 895 F.2d 473, 480 (8th Cir.1990).
In Clemons, the Supreme Court rejected the very argument accepted by the district court. Clemons argued that the Mississippi statutory scheme explicitly vesting death penalty sentencing authority in the jury rendered reweighing in his case unauthorized by state law and therefore a violation of due process under Hicks. Clemons, 494 U.S. at 746, 110 S.Ct. at 1447. According to Clemons, vesting factfinding and sentencing authority in the jury meant that the appellate courts could not, consistent with state law, engage in the “factfinding” and “sentencing” inherent in independent appellate reweighing of the factors underlying a death sentence. Since appellate courts had no state law sentencing authority, appellate reweighing would violate Clemons’ right not to be deprived of a liberty interest (his life) without due process of law. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, finding that the state supreme court’s assertion of independent authority to reweigh tempered the statutory scheme and made unavailable Clemons’ claim to an unqualified right to exclusive jury examination or weighing of the facts or factors underlying his death penalty. Id. at 747, 110 S.Ct. at 1447. Clemons’ express consideration and rejection of the argument that appellate reweighing is constitutionally objectionable in states where sentencing authority is statutorily vested in a lower sentencing body makes the question one of state law. Id. at 746-47, 110 S.Ct. at 1447-48.
Clemons distinguished Hicks as an instance of an appellate court admittedly acting without authority and imposing a sentence in the first instance, rather than “cur[ing] the deprivation by itself reconsidering the appropriateness” of the underlying void sentence. Id. at 747, 110 S.Ct. at 1447. The Supreme Court found the Mississippi Supreme Court’s independent assertion of authority to reweigh sufficient to overcome any Hicks problem. Id. That the Mississippi Supreme Court later reconsidered its interpretation of its own law is of no moment.7 Compare *1430Clemons v. State, 535 So.2d 1354, 1362-63 (Miss.1988) (court may affirm death sentence when an invalid aggravator has been considered), vacated, 494 U.S. 738, 110 S.Ct. 1441, 108 L.Ed.2d 725 (1990) with Clemons v. State, 593 So.2d 1004, 1006 (Miss.1992) (court is without authority to affirm death sentence when an invalid aggravator has been considered). What is relevant is that the original assertion of authority was enough to take the question out of the federal arena. Clemons, 494 U.S. at 747, 110 S.Ct. at 1447.
Nebraska’s capital punishment scheme is similar to Mississippi’s, except that a judge or panel of three judges, rather than a jury, imposes the death penalty in the first instance. A state appellate court’s practice of reweighing defeats a defendant’s assertion of an unqualified due process right to have a “jury [read sentencing panel] assess the consequences of the invalidation of one of the aggravating circumstances [which the jury had applied].” Id. at 747, 110 S.Ct. at 1448. The Nebraska Supreme Court has expressly asserted its authority to reweigh aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Reeves III, 476 N.W.2d at 837; see State v. Moore, 243 Neb. 679, 502 N.W.2d 227, 229-30 (1993); see also Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-2521.02 (Reissue 1989 & Supps.1992-94). Because “[w]e have no basis for disputing [the Nebraska Supreme Court’s] interpretation of [Nebraska] law,” and because reweighing under Nebraska’s sentencing scheme does not violate federal due process requirements, we find Nebraska’s assertion of authority to reweigh to have been effective in Reeves’ case.8 Clemons, 494 U.S. at 747, 110 S.Ct. at 1447-48; Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68, 112 S.Ct. 475, 479-80, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991).
The dissent asserts that the Nebraska Supreme Court interprets Rust as the district court did. See infra p. 1436. However, and aside from the precatory nature of any state court interpretation of our decisions, the Nebraska Supreme Court has expressly and correctly found that Rust is a limited decision, based on the invalidity of the entire sentencing proceeding, which is distinguishable on its facts from the “minor” sentencing errors at issue in Clemons. Moore, 502 N.W.2d at 229-30. The Nebraska Supreme Court has further emphatically rejected the proposition that Rust forbids state appellate reweighing in the more typical situation involving an invalid sentencing factor, and adheres to its position that it has the authority to reweigh. Moore, 502 N.W.2d at 229-30.
That the Nebraska Supreme Court has chosen, in the interests of judicial economy, to refrain from exercising its asserted authority to reweigh, pending clarification of the scope of Rust in eases such as the one now before us, cannot fairly be said to be an embracement of the district court’s position. See Moore, 502 N.W.2d at 230 (declining to exercise authority to reweigh in the interests of judicial economy). That the Nebraska Supreme Court bowed, in State v. Ryan, 248 Neb. 405, 534 N.W.2d 766, 796 (1995), to the district court’s decision and interpretation of Rust in this case, hardly amounts to the Nebraska Supreme Court interpreting Rust as the district court did. Indeed, it only further highlights the injury done to comity when federal courts reject state supreme court interpretations of their own law.
In fact, even the dissent acknowledges that Rust is no bar to reweighing by the Nebraska Supreme Court. See infra p. 1436. Rather, the dissent joins the district court in finding fault with the Nebraska Supreme Court’s interpretation its own law.
B. Instructions
Because of its application of Rust, the district court did not consider all matters raised by Reeves. Reeves v. Hopkins, 871 *1431F.Supp. 1182, 1193 n. 11 (D.Neb.1994). Since we prefer to address all the issues in a case at one time, rather than have a protracted, issue by issue, series of remands, see generally Rust v. Clarke, 960 F.2d 72, 73-74 (8th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 967, 113 S.Ct. 2950, 124 L.Ed.2d 697 (1993),9 we return this ease with instructions to consider and decide all issues raised but not addressed by the district court. We request that the district court make every effort to decide these issues within 120 days. We retain jurisdiction and will consolidate any appeal of the resolution of the undecided issues with those issues still pending before us.
III. CONCLUSION
We reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and with our instructions.
. Reeves is an American Indian who was adopted and raised by a Quaker family.
. As explained infra, we defer our consideration of this claim until the district court has addressed the other issues properly presented by Reeves.
. See Williams v. Clarke, 40 F.3d 1529, 1535 (8th Cir.1994) (Nebraska is a weighing state), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1397, 131 L.Ed.2d 247 (1995).
. To review a death sentence tainted by an improper aggravator under harmless error analysis, the state appellate court engages in a similar analysis. However, rather than coming to an independent decision as to the resultant balance, it decides whether there is any reasonable doubt that the sentencer would have come to the same result had the improper factor been jettisoned, or, alternatively, been properly defined. Clemons, 494 U.S. at 752-53, 110 S.Ct. at 1450-51.
. We could not so intimate because Clemons specifically stated that the examination of the record and attendant factfinding inherent in independent appellate reweighing does not violate due process in capital cases, and may, in fact, be necessary to assure that the petitioner receives the individualized sentencing consideration required by the Eighth Amendment. See Clemons, 494 U.S. at 745-50, 110 S.Ct. at 1446-49; Parker v. Dugger, 498 U.S. 308, 321, 111 S.Ct. 731, 739-40, 112 L.Ed.2d 812 (1991). Clemons thus renders untenable any contention that appellate reweighing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the factfinding inherent therein conflicts with a defendant's due process rights in states with two-tier systems. Clemons, 494 U.S. at 746-47, 110 S.Ct. at 1447-48.
. The petitioner in Clemons relied on Hicks to argue that the Mississippi Supreme Court could not, consistent with due process, engage in reweighing because he had a statutory state law right to have all facts found by a jury and to be sentenced by a jury. In rejecting Clemons' argument, the Supreme Court looked to the Mississippi Supreme Court's assertion of authority to reweigh, and to its history of doing so. Clemons, 494 U.S. at 747, 110 S.Ct. at 1447. As the Court said, it had no basis for disputing a state supreme court’s interpretation of its own law. Id.
.We in no way intend to imply that the Nebraska Supreme Court could not, like the Mississippi Supreme Court, reconsider its somewhat cryptic assertion of authority to reweigh, perhaps along the lines of the district court's thoughtful analysis. On the other hand, neither do we mean to suggest that the Nebraska Supreme Court should reconsider its authority. Our point is only that *1430once the Nebraska Supreme Court has stated what Nebraska law is, as federal courts, our only concern is whether that determination conflicts with federal constitutional rights.
. State appellate courts are not required to reweigh, and may in certain cases find that remand is more appropriate or is even required. Clemons, 494 U.S. at 754 & n. 5, 110 S.Ct. at 1451 & n. 5. When cases have a troublesome posture, such as that in Rust, "[a] state appellate court’s decision to conduct harmless-error analysis or to reweigh aggravating and mitigating factors rather than remand to the sentencing jury [will] violate! ] the Constitution [as being] made arbitrarily.” Id. at 754-55 n. 5, 110 S.Ct. at 1451 n. 5.
. We realize that this may be a case of "do as we say and not as we do.” Nonetheless, we prefer that district courts address and resolve all issues to avoid time-consuming remands and to ensure that cases are fully resolved within a reasonable time frame.