Milton N. HAYES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony HEDGPETH, Warden and Salinas Valley State Prison, Respondents-Appellees, 589 F. App'x 393

MEMORANDUM Petitioner Hayes appeals from the district court judgment denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Hayes challenges his California conviction for first-degree murder, arguing that his pre-arrest statements to police should have been suppressed under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2258, and, reviewing the district court’s decision de novo, we affirm. We must deny Hayes’s petition unless the decision of the.

California Court of Appeal “(1) ... was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) ... was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The decision of the California Court of Appeal was not contrary to any principle of law clearly established by Supreme Court precedent, nor did it involve an unreasonable application of any such principle.

Because some of the facts in this case weigh in favor of a finding that Hayes was in custody when he was interrogated while other facts weigh against such a finding, fairminded jurists could disagree over whether Hayes was in custody. Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664-65, 124 S.Ct. 2140, 158 L.Ed.2d 938 (2004). Thus, the California Court of Appeal’s decision was not unreasonable. Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 131 S.Ct. 770, 786-87, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011). Nor was the California Court of Appeal’s decision based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. Wood v.

Allen, 558 U.S. 290, 301, 130 S.Ct. 841, 175 L.Ed.2d 738 (2010). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.