Michelle Jones v. Mary Lattimore
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Michelle Elizabeth Jones appeals from the denial of her petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Jones argues that her un Mirandized interview with police should have been suppressed, and that a second Mirandized interview that took place not long afterwards should also have been suppressed under the rule of Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 , 124 S.Ct. 2601 , 159 L.Ed.2d 648 (2004). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2258(a), and we affirm.
We review the district court’s denial of Jones’ petition de novo. Cudjo v. Ayers, 698 F.3d 752, 761 (9th Cir.2012). Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), habeas relief from a state court conviction must be denied “unless it is shown that the earlier state court’s decision was contrary to federal law then clearly established in the holdings of [the Supreme Court]; or that it involved an unreasonable application of such law; or that it was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the record before the state court.” Harrington v. Richter, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 770, 785 , 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).