Walkinhawk

*654 MEMORANDUM **

Tony Walkinhawk appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We affirm.

Walkinhawk argues that his post-arrest statements were admitted in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). However, the California Court of Appeal’s determination that Walkinhawk had impliedly waived his Miranda rights was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, federal law clearly established in Miranda and North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369 , 99 S.Ct. 1755 , 60 L.Ed.2d 286 (1979). Walkinhawk affirmatively nodded his understanding of his Miranda rights, he responded to the officer’s questions about what happened after a brief silence, he never indicated that he wanted a lawyer or that he did not want to speak to the officer, and he has a history of prior arrests and experience with law enforcement. See Butler, 441 U.S. at 373 , 99 S.Ct. 1755 (holding that “the defendant’s silence, coupled with an understanding of his rights and a course of conduct indicating waiver” may support a finding of implied waiver). Even if Walkinhawk’s initial, ambiguous remark expressed…