Trethewey

MEMORANDUM *

Joann Jean Trethewey appeals a judgment denying her petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Because the state court rulings at issue were neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1), we affirm.

1. Miranda Advice.

Petitioner contends that, under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) and its progeny, she was “in custody” on April 3 prior to and during the time of her initial confes *593 sion to Detective Bunch, and that the state trial court erroneously admitted her statements made during this time frame.

In determining whether an individual was in custody for purposes of Miranda , we ask whether, given the circumstances surrounding the interrogation, a reasonable person in the petitioner’s shoes would have felt that “he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave.” Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112 , 116 S.Ct. 457 , 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995). “[A] court must examine all of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation, but the ultimate inquiry is simply whether there was a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the…