Bustamante

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner David Luis Bustamante appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habe-as petition, which challenges his robbery conviction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (a). Reviewing de novo, Alvarado v. Hickman, 316 F.3d 841, 845 (2002), amended, (9th Cir.2003), we affirm.

Bustamante contends that the trial court erred when it admitted evidence of a statement he made to an officer because he had not received warnings pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). The California Court of Appeal rejected this claim, reasoning that the circumstances of the detention indicated that Bustamante was not in custody for purposes of Miranda . The California court’s conclusion is neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of federal law as clearly established by the Supreme Court. See Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 439-40 , 104 S.Ct. 3138 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984) (stating that Miranda does not apply to stops made pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)); see also Alvarado, 316 F.3d at 846 (stating that factors relevant to whether a…