Opinion
No. 09-17468 D.C. No. 2:05-cv-01557-MCE- KJM
12-23-2011
MANUEL PRIMAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent-Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Eastern California
Morrison C. England, Junior, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted September 14, 2011
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and OLIVER, Chief District Judge.
The Honorable Solomon Oliver, Jr., Chief District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Cleveland, sitting by designation.
--------
California State prisoner, Manuel Primas, appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his jury conviction of murder and attempted robbery. Primas maintains that his conviction should be reversed because the trial court admitted his confession into evidence in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). We review de novo the district court's denial of a state prisoner's habeas petition. Barker v. Fleming, 423 F.3d 1085, 1091 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.
The California Court of Appeal's decision that Primas did not unambiguously invoke his right to remain silent while being interrogated, and that his statements were uncoerced and voluntary, Berghuis v. Thompkins, 130 S. Ct. 2250, 2259-60 (2010), was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, nor an unreasonable determination of the facts, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
AFFIRMED.