Taylor

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Vincent Wade Taylor appeals pro se the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo the district court’s order denying a § 2254 petition, see Anderson v. Alameida, 397 F.3d 1175, 1177 (9th Cir.2005), and we affirm.

Taylor contends that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction. We disagree, and conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt, the essential elements of each of the charged offenses. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

Taylor also contends that there is no rational basis for imposing a ten-year sentencing enhancement for attempted robbery, when committed with a firearm. However, we conclude that the California state court’s finding that there is a rational basis for this enhancement did not result in the misapplication of federal law. See McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184, 191 , 85 S.Ct. 283 , 13 L.Ed.2d 222 (1964). We also reject Taylor’s claim that this ten-year enhancement, as applied, violates the Eighth Amendment. See Ewing v.…