22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T46f,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. 36-3.24:T49c,

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.