Case ID: f-appx_430/html/0589-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Steven Lee VARNUM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Richard KIRKLAND, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 09-15350.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 20, 2011.
    
    Filed April 28, 2011.
    Linnea Marie Johnson, Esquire, Central California Appellate Program, Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Steven Lee Varnum, Susanville, CA, pro se.
    Justain Riley, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Steven Lee Varnum appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Varnum contends that the state court’s denial of his motion to suppress his confession was a violation of his Fifth Amendment right to silence and counsel under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). The state court denial of Varnum’s motion was not an unreasonable determination of the facts and was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 459, 114 S.Ct. 2350, 129 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994) (invocation of Miranda right to counsel must be unambiguous such that a reasonable officer in light of the circumstances would understand the statement to be invoking the right to counsel).

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