Donroy B. Walker v. Mark Nooth

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DONROY B. WALKER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
MARK NOOTH,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 12-35478
D.C. No. 1:09-cv-01414-CL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Owen M. Panner, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 11, 2013**
Portland, Oregon
Before: PREGERSON, MURGUIA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
An Oregon jury convicted Walker of first-degree sexual abuse and first-
degree unlawful sexual penetration. After exhausting his state remedies, Walker
filed a federal habeas corpus petition, which the district court denied. We have
FILED
JUL 16 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

jurisdiction over Walker’s appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we
affirm.
The Oregon courts’ decision that Walker was not “in custody” for Miranda
purposes was not “so lacking in justification that there was an error well
understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility of
fairminded disagreement.” Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770, 786–87 (2011).
Rather, that decision fell well “within the matrix” of clearly established Supreme
Court authority. Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 665 (2004). The
detectives drove an unmarked police car and approached Walker with a congenial
tone; Walker consented to the interview; the detectives did not transport Walker to,
or ask him to appear at, the police station; the interview took place in a large
parking lot in Walker’s neighborhood in the middle of the day; the detectives told
Walker that he was not under arrest and was free to leave at any time; and the
detectives let Walker leave at the end of the interview. See generally Howes v.
Fields, 132 S. Ct. 1181, 1189 (2012) (compiling the Supreme Court’s “in custody”
cases).
AFFIRMED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --