Preciado

MEMORANDUM **

Abraham Preciado appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We affirm.

I

Although the Miranda warning Preciado was given before his first interview was imperfect, the California Court of Appeal’s determination that his waiver was nevertheless knowing and voluntary was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, nor an unreasonable determination in light of the evidence presented. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1), (2); Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 71-72 , 123 S.Ct. 1166 , 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003). Preciado was told he had a right to counsel before questioning. We have invalidated Miranda waivers that do not clearly advise of the right to counsel during questioning, see, e.g., United States v. Bland, 908 F.2d 471, 473-74 (9th Cir.1990), but the Supreme Court has not. Rather, warnings need not be presented in any particular formulation to comport with the law articulated by the Supreme Court. See, e.g., Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195, 202-03 , 109 S.Ct. 2875 , 106 L.Ed.2d 166 (1989); California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355, 359-61 , 101 S.Ct. 2806 , 69 L.Ed.2d 696 (1981) (per curiam). Other circuits are split on the point, 1…