a COA on this ground. 2. Sixth Amendment Right to Confrontation The Kansas Supreme Court rejected Torres’s argument that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses when it admitted the statements he made to law enforcement officers. Torres, 121 P.3d at 437-38. The court explained Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 53-54, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), did not prohibit the district court from admitting these statements, even though Torres did not testify. Torres, 121 P.3d at 438. We agree that no clear authority exists for the proposition that the Sixth Amendment guarantees a right to “confront oneself’ at trial. See, e.g., United States v. Brown, 441 F.3d 1330, 1359 (11th Cir .2006), cert. denied, —U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 1149, 166 L.Ed.2d 998 (2007) (<HOLDING>) (citing United States v. Zizzo, 120 F.3d 1338,
holding that admitting evidence of a defendants prior statement to an investigator proffered by the commonwealth did not violate the defendants fifth amendment rights by forcing him to testify to dispute it holding that rule 606b does not violate the sixth amendment holding that because defendant initiated conversation leading to statement trial court did not err in admitting statement holding that the court lacks jurisdiction over sixth amendment claims because the sixth amendment is not moneymandating holding district court did not violate sixth amendment by admitting defendants outofcourt statement