Gregory Goss v. James H. Gomez Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General of the State of California

103 F.3d 138 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Gregory GOSS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James H. GOMEZ; Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellees. No. 95-56383. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Nov. 5, 1996. * Decided Nov. 7, 1996. Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 California state prisoner Gregory Goss appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Goss was convicted of second degree murder and two counts of attempted murder. He contends the district court erred when it denied him habeas relief. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo, Duckett v. Godinez, 67 F.3d 734, 739 (9th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1549 (1996), and affirm. 3 Goss contends that his constitutional protection against self-incrimination was violated because he was not given a sufficient Miranda warning…