Lanosa

MEMORANDUM *

Rodney Lanosa appeals from the district court’s denial of habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We have jurisdiction un *566 der 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a), and we affirm.

Lanosa’s habeas petition was filed on March 5, 2007, after the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996); therefore, AEDPA’s provisions apply. See Delgado v. Lewis, 223 F.3d 976, 979 (9th Cir.2000).

1. Lanosa first argues that the Hawaii Supreme Court unreasonably applied Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 , 101 S.Ct. 1880 , 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981), when it held that Lanosa’s Miranda rights were not violated by the state trial court’s admission of Lanosa’s uncounseled statements to the Maui Police Department (MPD). Lanosa argues that he invoked his right to counsel by refusing to sign a waiver of his right to counsel and right to silence, and that the MPD violated his Miranda rights by continuing to question Lanosa after he made this alleged invocation. It was not unreasonable for the Hawaii Supreme Court to determine that Lanosa’s refusal to…