267 F.3d 524, 531 (6th Cir.2001) (quoting Herbert v. Billy, 160 F.3d 1131, 1135 (6th Cir.1998)). 18 . Welch v. City of Pratt, Kansas, 214 F.3d 1219, 1222 (10th Cir.2000) (internal citations and quotations omitted). 19 . Bocian v. Godinez, 101 F.3d 465, 471 (7th Cir.1996). 20 . Bell v. Jarvis, 236 F.3d 149, 162 (4th Cir.2000) (en banc). 21 . Id. at 162. 22 . Williams v. Bowersox, 340 F.3d 667 (8th Cir.2003). 23 . Id. at 672. 24 . Ouber v. Guarino, 293 F.3d 19, 26 (1st Cir.2002). 25 . Matteo v. Superintendent, 171 F.3d 877, 889-90 (3rd Cir.1999). 26 . U.S. Const. amend. VI. 27 . See generally 20 Am. Jur. 2D Courts § 225 (1965) (noting that state courts free to ignore a federal ruling on a state law); see also Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 80, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938) (<HOLDING>); Collier v. Bayer, 408 F.3d 1279, 1283 n. 4
holding that federal courts are bound by state interpretations of state law holding that state courts in construing and interpreting state law are not bound by the decisions of federal courts recognizing that federal courts are bound by pronouncements of the california supreme court on applicable state law holding that the scope and application of state exemptions are defined by the state courts and that we are bound by their interpretations holding federal courts are bound by state court determinations of state law