NOT FOR PUB LIC ATION UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
M OISES SANC HEZ-LLAM AS, ) No. 14-35481 ) Pe titione r - Appe lla

nt, ) D.C . No. 6:11-c v-01310-TC

) v. ) M EM OR A NDUM * ) R OB PER SSON, ) ) R e sponde nt - Appe l le e . ) )

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon M ic ha e l J. M c Shane , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Oc tobe r 14, 2015 ** Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : FER

NANDEZ, GILM AN, *** and B EA, C irc uit Judge s. M oise s Sa

nc he z -Llam a s a

ppe a ls the distric t

c ourt’ s de nia l of his pe tition for
a writ of ha

be a s c orpus. Se e28 U.S.C . § 2254. W e a ffirm
. 

# F IL ED
NOV 02 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** T he pa ne l una nim ously finds this c a se suita

ble for de c ision without ora l argum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honora

ble R o na ld Le e Gilm a

n , Se nior C i rc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a ls for the Sixth C irc uit, sitting by de signa t ion.(1) W e first hold tha t we have jurisdic tion to he ar this a ppe a l. Se e28 U.S.C . §§ 1291, 2253(c )(1); Mille r-El v . C oc k re ll , 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1039, 154 L. Ed. 2d 931 (2003). The pa rtie s a gre e tha

t the distric t

c o urt im plic itly grante d a C e rtific ate of Appe a la

bility (C OA) on the issue now be fore us. The re c ord offe rs support for tha t position, but we

disc oura ge the m e thod use d. In
any e ve nt, we re c ogniz e tha

t Sa nc he z ’ s filing of a

Notic e of Appe a l wa s a

re que st that we issue a

C OA, 1 a nd on there c ord be fore us we will do so for the purpose of
a c c om plishing substa

ntia l justic e re ga

rding theissue s de c ide d

by the distric t c ourt. 2 (2) Sanc he z first a sse rts tha t the sta te c ourts im

prope rly de t e rm i ne d tha

t his wa ive r of his Miranda 3 rights wa s knowing a n d inte llige nt. W e disa gre e . Upon our re vie w of the re c o rd, Sanc he z ha s not re butte d the pre sum ption of
c orre c tne ss a fforde d

to the sta te c ourt’ s fa c tua l de te rm inat ion tha t Sa nc he z ’ s
wa ive r wa s knowing a

n d inte llige nt by

c le ar an d c onvinc ing e vide n c e . Se e28 U.S.C . § 2254(e )(1); Mille r-El , 537 U.S. a t 340, 123 S. C t. at 1041; Doody v . Ry an , 649 F.3d 986, 1002 (9th C ir. 2011) (e n ba nc ); Unite d State

s v . Doe , 155 F.3d 1070,

1 Fe d. R . App. P. 22(b)(2); se e also Slac k v . Mc Danie l , 529 U.S. 473, 483, 120 S. C t. 1595, 1603, 146 L. Ed. 2d 542 (2000).

2 Se e W ilson v . Be lle que , 554 F.3d 816, 826–28 (9th C ir. 2009).
3 Miranda v

. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 467–68, 86 S. C t. 1602, 1624–25, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966). 21074 (9th C ir. 1998). And to the e xte nt tha

t Sa nc he za sse rts a

n unre a sona

ble
a pplic ation of c le a

rly e sta b lishe d fe de ra l la

w, we are not a

ble to sa y tha t “ the re is no possibility

fa irm inde d jurists c ould disagre e tha t the sta te c o urt’ s de c ision
c onflic ts with [the ] C ourt’ s pre c e de nts.” Harrington v. Ric hte r , 562 U.S. 86, 102, 131 S. C t. 770, 786, 178 L. Ed. 2d 624 (2011). For e xam ple : Sa n c he z ’ s low English-c om pre he nsion skills a

re not e nough to show tha t the sta te c ourt a c te d unre a sona

bly whe re , a s he re , the re wa s e vide nc e that he wa s a dvise d of his rights in Spa nish twic e and indic ate d tha t he unde rstood. Nor is it e nough to point out tha t he wa s intoxic ate d to som e de gre e whe re the re
wa s substa

ntia l e vide nc e tha

t he wa s c ohe re nt a

nd re sponsive
. Se e M

aty linsk y v . Budge , 577 F.3d 1083, 1095 (9th C ir. 2009); Unite d State s v . Rodrigue

zRodrigue z , 393 F.3d 849, 855 (9th C ir. 2004), ov e rrule d on othe r grounds as
re c ognize d in United State s v . Aguila-Monte

s deOc a , 655 F.3d 915, 945–46 (9th C ir. 2011) (e n ba

nc ). Nor is his c la im e d unfa m ilia rity with theUnite d

Stat e s sy ste m of justic e suffic ie nt. Se e Unite d State s v . Labrada-Bustamante , 428 F.3d 1252, 1259 (9th C ir. 2005). (3) Sanc he z a l so a

rgue s tha t his c onfe ssion wa s not volunta ry . Howe ve r, on this re c ord the sta

t e c ourt’ s de te rm ination to the c ontra ry wa s re a sona

ble . The re
wa s a m ple e vide nc e to pe rm it the sta te c ourt to re a sona

b ly de te rm ine that , unde r 3the t ota lity of the c irc um sta n c e s, at no point wa s Sanc he z ’ s will ove rborne
. Se e Dic k e rson v . Unite d State

s , 530 U.S. 428, 434, 120 S. Ct. 2326, 2331, 147 L. Ed. 2d 405 (2000); se ealso Yarborough v . Alv arado , 541 U.S. 652, 667–68, 124 S. C t. 2140, 2151, 158 L. Ed. 2d 938 (2004); Brow n v . Horre ll , 644 F.3d 969, 979 (9th C ir. 2011). The re c ord shows tha t the e vide nc e c o uld re a s ona bly be re a d to support a de te rm ination tha

t fa r from be ing c o e rc ive , the offic e rs he re we re
re spe c tful a

nd hum ane , and showe d c onc e rn for Sa nc he z ’ s ne e ds. Tha

t inc lude d a willingne ss to ta

k e Sanc h e z to a

hospita l , whic h he de c line d for som e tim e , a

nd the n ta king him whe n he a gre e d to go. Although Sa

nc he z m e ntions prom

i se s of le nie n c y , he points to no suc h prom ise s be fore or a fte r the Miranda wa rnings, a nd, in c onte xt, e xhorta

tions tha t it would be be tte r if he ta lke d now ra the r tha n la te r we re insuffic ie nt to re quire a de te rm i nation tha

t he wa s prom ise d le nie nc y or c oe rc e d. Se e Unite d State s v . Harrison , 34 F.3d 886, 891 (9th C ir. 1994); Unite d State s v . Bautista-Av ila , 6 F.3d 1360, 1364 (9th C ir. 1993). To the e xte nt Sa

nc he z a sse rts tha

t his wa i ve r of his Miranda rights wa s not volunta ry , we disa gre e . Just a s his c onfe ssion wa s volunta ry , so too wa s his wa i ve r of his Miranda rights, a

nd the sta te c ourt’ s de te rm ination on this issue wa s
re a s ona ble
. Se e Bautista-Av ila , 6 F.3d a t 1365; s e ealso C

olorado v . C

onne lly , 479 4U.S. 157, 169–70, 107 S. Ct. 515, 523, 93 L. Ed. 2d 473 (1986).

AFFIRM ED.

5