
    Alexandre L. HOCHSTRASER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeffrey BEARD, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 13-16703.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 22, 2014.
    
    Filed July 29, 2014.
    James McNair Thompson, Law Offices, Los Gatos, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Bruce Ortega, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Jeffrey Beard is substituted for his predecessor, Matthew Cate, as Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Alexandre L. Hochstraser appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review a district court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition de novo, see Stanley v. Cullen, 633 F.3d 852, 859 (9th Cir.2011), and we affirm.

Hochstraser contends that there was insufficient evidence of premeditation, deliberation, or willfulness to support his conviction for first-degree murder. The California Supreme Court’s rejection of Hochstraser’s claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Coleman v. Johnson, - U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2060, 2062, 2065, 182 L.Ed.2d 978 (2012) (per curiam). In light of the evidence presented. at trial, and in particular the testimony regarding Hochstraser’s statements about the victim prior to the murder, the state court reasonably concluded that, “viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found” Hochstraser harbored the requisite intent. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781.

We construe Hochstraser’s additional argument as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22—1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by -9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     