Case ID: f-appx_516/html/0664-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rafael BARRETO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William KNIPP, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 10-15591.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 19, 2013.
    
    Filed April 23, 2013.
    Rafael Barreto, pro se.
    Allan I. Yannow, Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: HAWKINS, GRABER and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rafael Barreto appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We review denial of Bar-reto’s habeas petition de novo. DeWeaver v. Runnels, 556 F.3d 995, 997 (9th Cir. 2009).

The last reasoned decision from state court separately analyzed both waiver of Barreto’s Miranda rights and the volun-tariness of his statements to the police. See Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 163, 167-70, 107 S.Ct. 515, 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986). The state court therefore did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law by conflating two distinct issues. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

The state court concluded that Barreto knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights. At worst, fairminded jurists could disagree as to whether the state court’s conclusion was correct. See Harrington v. Richter, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 770, 786, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011). Barreto is therefore not entitled to relief on his Fifth Amendment claim. Id.

Barreto has not made a substantial showing that his statements to police were coerced and therefore that his Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Therefore, we decline to issue a certificate of appealability on this issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.