Sweeney

MEMORANDUM **

The facts and procedural posture of the case are known to the parties, and we do not repeat them here.

Joseph Sweeney appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . Sweeney contends that his confession was improperly admitted during his state-court trial because it was not voluntary and because the police failed to properly advise him of his Miranda rights. We review the district court’s dismissal of the petition for writ of habeas corpus de novo. Alcala v. Woodford, 334 F.3d 862, 868 (9th Cir.2003).

The California court’s decision to admit Sweeney’s confession did not violate clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). Sweeney maintains that his spontaneous confession to his sister in the presence of police was not voluntary. However, such a confession is voluntary, and therefore admissible, so long as the family member is not acting as an agent of the police. Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 528-30 , 107 S.Ct. 1931 , 95 L.Ed.2d 458 (1987). The state court properly credited police testimony that Sweeney’s sister requested permission to see Sweeney and was not…