Thomas

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Charles E. Thomas appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus under 28 *222 U.S.C. § 2254 . Like the district court, we conclude that the California Court of Appeal’s rejection of Thomas’s claims was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. Accordingly, we affirm.

Although the interrogating detectives did not specify that Thomas’s right to counsel applied before and during questioning, several federal courts of appeals have found similar general advisements adequate under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). See, e.g., United States v. Frankson, 83 F.3d 79, 82 (4th Cir.1996); United States v. Caldwell, 954 F.2d 496, 502 (8th Cir.1992); United States v. Burns, 684 F.2d 1066, 1074-75 (2d Cir.1982); United States v. Adams, 484 F.2d 357, 361-62 (7th Cir.1973). That the Ninth Circuit has adopted a contrary view in a case involving a federal prosecution and conviction, rather than a Section 2254 petition, see United States v. Noti, 731 F.2d 610, 614-15 (1984), does not establish Thomas’s right to habeas relief. Rather, “[t]he very fact…