Case Name: Jose Abel BARDALES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Nancy HOWTON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-04
Citations: 451 F. App'x 682
Docket Number: No. 10-35965
Parties: Jose Abel BARDALES, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Nancy HOWTON, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 451
Pages: 682–683

Head Matter:
Jose Abel BARDALES, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Nancy HOWTON, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 10-35965.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
Filed Oct. 4, 2011.
Nell Brown, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDOR — Federal Public De fender’s Office (Portland), Portland, OR, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Kathleen Cegla, Assistant Attorney General, AGOR — Office of the Oregon Attorney General (Salem), Salem, OR, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Oregon state prisoner Jose Abel Bar-dales appeals from the district court's judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Bardales contends that the state court's decision to admit at trial statements he made to a police officer violated his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). The state court's decision was not based on 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); Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495, 97 S.Ct. 711, 50 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977) (per curiam) (no Miranda warning necessary because defendant was not in custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Bardales also contends that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment because it is grossly disproportionate to the severity of his crime. The state court's determination that the sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment 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); Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 73, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003) (noting that the only "clearly established law" in Eighth Amendment cases is the gross dispropor-tionality principle, which is applicable only in "exceedingly rare" and "extreme" cases).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.