Case Name: Terebea Jean WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Deborah JACQUEZ, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-05-17
Citations: 472 F. App'x 851
Docket Number: No. 11-15653
Parties: Terebea Jean WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Deborah JACQUEZ, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 472
Pages: 851–853

Head Matter:
Terebea Jean WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Deborah JACQUEZ, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 11-15653.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted April 20, 2012.
Filed May 17, 2012.
Stephanie Marie Adraktas, Law Office of Stephanie Adraktas, Berkeley, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
David Andrew Eldridge, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: NOONAN and MURGUTA, Circuit Judges, and TIMLIN, Senior District Judge.
The Honorable Robert J. Timlin, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Central California, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Terebea Jean Williams appeals the district court's denial of her habeas corpus petition. Williams asserts that this court should vacate her conviction and order a new trial because her custodial statements were admitted at trial in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
The California Court of Appeal did not unreasonably apply federal law in determining that any potential violation of Williams's Miranda rights was excused under California's rescue doctrine. While the questioning of Williams may have been investigatory in nature as to not fall within the "public safety" exception set out in New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 104 S.Ct. 2626, 81 L.Ed.2d 550 (1984), "fair-minded jurists could disagree." Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664, 124 S.Ct. 2140, 158 L.Ed.2d 938 (2004). The state court's finding that the officers were prompted by a concern for rescue does not violate "clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.