Logan

MEMORANDUM

Jeffrey Logan appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We review the district court’s decision to deny a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition de novo, Bribiesca v. Galaza, 215 F.3d 1015, 1018 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.

Logan first contends that the admission of his statements to law enforcement officers violated his due process rights because he made the statements in reliance on promises of immunity. We find that the state courts’ rulings that Logan’s statements were voluntary were neither “contrary to, [n]or involved an unreasonable application of[] clearly established Federal law,” as is required for relief under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1).

“[Cjoercive police activity is a necessary predicate to the finding that a confession is not ‘voluntary’ within the meaning of the Due Process Clause.... ” Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 167 , 107 S.Ct. 515 , 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986). “[I]n most circumstances, speculation that cooperation will benefit the' defendant or even promises to recommend leniency are not sufficiently compelling to…