FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUL 26 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAYMOND ROBLES, No. 14-55803
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-CV-04429-CAS-
AJW
v.
ELVIN VALENZUELA, Warden, MEMORANDUM*
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted July 7, 2016
Pasadena, California
Before: VANASKIE,** MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Thomas I. Vanaskie, United States Circuit Judge for
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.
Raymond Robles appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas
corpus relief. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm
the district court judgment.
Robles argues that his case warrants habeas relief because the state court
unreasonably applied federal law and made an unreasonable determination of fact
in concluding that his statements to law enforcement officers acting in an
undercover capacity at the jail where Robles was incarcerated were not coerced.
See 28 U.S.C. 2254(d). We affirm the district court judgment, however, because
the undercover officers did not threaten Robles or otherwise compel him to speak
against his will. See Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292, 294, 300 (1990).
Accordingly, we cannot say that the state court unreasonably applied the law or
unreasonably determined the facts in finding that Robles believed he was speaking
to an experienced criminal who could help him with his story, thus motivating
Robles to speak freely and precluding a finding that his statements were coerced.
Additionally, the state court’s failure to expressly address Robles’ physical
characteristics does not warrant a finding that the state court unreasonably applied
federal law. See Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 434 (2000). In light of
our deferential review under AEDPA, we conclude that the state court did not
2
unreasonably apply federal law or make an unreasonable determination of fact in
regard to Robles’ statements, and habeas relief is not warranted.
AFFIRMED.
3