1340. 13 . Id. at 567, 106 S.Ct. 1340. 14 . Norris v. Risley, 918 F.2d 828 (9th Cir.1990). 15 . 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) (emphasis added). 16 . Norris, 918 F.2d at 829. 17 . Mitzel v. Tat Cir.2005) ("Federal courts of appealfs] may not review state courts' interpretations of state law.''). 28 . See Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 58 n. 11, 117 S.Ct. 1055, 137 L.Ed.2d 170 (1997); see also Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 375-76, 113 S.Ct. 838, 122 L.Ed.2d 180 (1993) (Thomas, J., concurring) ("In our federal system, a state trial court's interpretation of federal law is no less authoritative than that of the federal court of appeals in whose circuit the trial court is located."); People v. Williams, 16 Cal.4th 153, 190, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 123, 940 P.2d 710 (1997) (<HOLDING>). BEA, Circuit Judge, with whom Circuit Judges
holding that state courts in construing and interpreting state law are not bound by the decisions of federal courts holding federal courts are bound by state court determinations of state law recognizing that decisions of lower federal courts interpreting federal law are not binding on state courts holding that federal courts are bound by state interpretations of state law holding that in diversity cases federal courts are to apply state substantive law and federal procedural law