MEMORANDUM ***
California prisoner Carlos Amezcua appeals the district courts denial of his habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We have jurisdiction pursuant to § 2253(a) and affirm.
Because “a state courts interpretation of state law, including one announced on direct appeal of the challenged conviction, binds a federal court sitting in habeas corpus,” Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74, 76, 126 S.Ct. 602, 163 L.Ed.2d 407 (2005) (per curiam), we are bound by the California Court of Appeals conclusion that Amezcuas extrajudicial statements to the police were admissible at trial under Californias corpus delicti rule. Therefore, the California Court of Appeals rejection of Amezcuas claim that there was insufficient evidence to uphold his convictions for counts 7, 9 and 10 was not contrary to Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
AFFIRMED.