FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 23 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAFAEL BARRETO, No. 10-15591
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:08-cv-02008-MHP
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM KNIPP, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Marilyn H. Patel, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 19, 2013**
San Francisco, California
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Rafael Barreto appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of
habeas corpus. We review denial of Barreto’s habeas petition de novo. DeWeaver
v. Runnels, 556 F.3d 995, 997 (9th Cir. 2009).
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The last reasoned decision from state court separately analyzed both waiver
of Barreto’s Miranda rights and the voluntariness of his statements to the police.
See Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 163, 167–70 (1986). The state court
therefore did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law by conflating
two distinct issues. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
The state court concluded that Barreto knowingly and voluntarily waived his
Miranda rights. At worst, fairminded jurists could disagree as to whether the state
court’s conclusion was correct. See Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770, 786
(2011). Barreto is therefore not entitled to relief on his Fifth Amendment claim.
Id.
Barreto has not made a substantial showing that his statements to police
were coerced and therefore that his Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Therefore, we decline to issue a certificate of
appealability on this issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A).
AFFIRMED.
2