Case Name: Richard Jason VAUGHN, Petitioner- Appellant, v. Steven J. CAMBRA, Jr., Warden, Respondent - Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-15
Citations: 103 F. App'x 276
Docket Number: No. 03-56010
Parties: Richard Jason VAUGHN, Petitioner— Appellant, v. Steven J. CAMBRA, Jr., Warden, Respondent — Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 103
Pages: 276–277

Head Matter:
Richard Jason VAUGHN, Petitioner— Appellant, v. Steven J. CAMBRA, Jr., Warden, Respondent — Appellee.
No. 03-56010.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 13, 2004.
Decided July 15, 2004.
Richard Jason Vaughn, Soledad, CA, pro se.
Stephanie A. Miyoshi, DAG, Office of the Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: KOZINSKI, SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges, and WEINER, Senior District Judge.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Charles R. Weiner, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo a district court's decision to deny federal habeas relief, Clark v. Murphy, 331 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 446, 157 L.Ed.2d 313 (2003), and we affirm.
Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we recite them only as necessary for this decision. Vaughn argues that the attempted murder instruction improperly allowed the jury to convict him of attempted premeditated murder as an aider and abettor without finding that he personally premeditated the offense. We conclude that the California Court of Appeal's decision rejecting this claim was not contrary to, and did not involve an unreasonable application of, clearly-established federal law. See Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476, 483,113 S.Ct. 2194,124 L.Ed.2d 436 (1993) (recognizing that federal courts "are bound by a state court's construction of a state statute"); People v. Lee, 31 Cal.4th 613, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 402, 74 P.3d 176, 178 (2003) (holding that CahPenal Code § 664(a) "does not require personal willfulness, deliberation, and premeditation on the part of an attempted murderer") (emphasis in original), cert denied sub nom. Xiong v. California, — U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 1680, 158 L.Ed.2d 374 (2004).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.