Case Name: Manuel PRIMAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. People of the State of CALIFORNIA, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-12-23
Citations: 463 F. App'x 673
Docket Number: No. 09-17468
Parties: Manuel PRIMAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. People of the State of CALIFORNIA, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: THOMAS and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and OLIVER, Chief District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 463
Pages: 673–674

Head Matter:
Manuel PRIMAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. People of the State of CALIFORNIA, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 09-17468.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Sept. 14, 2011.
Filed Dec. 23, 2011.
Geoffrey M. Jones, Esquire, Law Office of Geoff Jones, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Manuel Primas, pro se.
Catherine Tennant Nieto, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
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.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California State prisoner, Manuel Pri-mas, 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, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (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, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2250, 2259-60, 176 L.Ed.2d 1098 (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.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.