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 *844 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.