United States District Court, D. Oregon
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. McSHANE, District Judge.
Petitioner filed this petition, ECF No. 2, for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his various convictions because they relied, at least in part, on an insufficient waiver of Miranda rights and otherwise involuntary (i.e., coerced) statements. Respondent, in response, see, e.g., ECF No. 29 & 59, moves this Court to deny the petition because the underlying state court's suppression denial was based upon reasonable factual determinations and a reasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. Judge Thomas M. Coffin issued a Findings and Recommendation (F & R) on February 14, 2014. This matter is now before this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
This Court reviews all portions of the F & R subject to objection de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Machs. Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). Petitioner timely filed objections to the F & R. Upon review, this Court finds no error in Judge Coffin's F & R, ECF No. 60. As indicated in the F & R, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1966 (AEDPA) establishes a "highly deferential standard for evaluating state court rulings." Although this Court may disagree with the underlying state court's decision, this Court is unable to find that the state court's application of the law was "objectively unreasonable" or that the state court's findings of fact were "actually unreasonable." See, e.g., Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 548 U.S. 331, 361 (2006) (Ginsburg, J., concurring in judgment) ("Sanchez-Llamas, with his life experience in the United States, scarcely resembles the uncomprehending detainee....").
This Court ADOPTS Judge Coffin's F & R, ECF No. 60, in full. Petitioner Moises Sanchez-Llamas's ...