Neel

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Logan Neel appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus, challenging his conviction for lewd or lascivious conduct with a child. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . Reviewing de novo, see Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999), we affirm.

*418 Neel contends that his conviction is unconstitutional because it was based solely on the victim’s, subsequently recanted, trial testimony. The state court in this case found that the victim’s recantation was not credible because it occurred after she was reunited with family members, who were witnesses for petitioner at trial, and because there was physical evidence and additional witness testimony corroborating the victim’s testimony at trial. Because petitioner has not shown that the state court’s determination was incorrect, we conclude that the district court properly denied habeas relief on this claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (e)(1) (stating that a state court’s determination of a factual issue is presumed correct on habeas review, and a petitioner “shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness…