
    Regina PEEL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeffrey BEARD, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 13-57155.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted April 7, 2016.
    Filed April 20, 2016.
    Charles Roger Khoury, Jr., Esquire, Del Mar, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Susan Efim, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    
      Before: FERNANDEZ and BEA, Circuit Judges, and MENDOZA, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Salvador Mendoza, Jr., District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Regina Peel appeals the district court’s, denial of her petition for writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We affirm.

Peel asserts that her right to be protected against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution was violated when she was interrogated by police officers who did not inform her of her rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612,16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). We disagree.

Miranda protections are accorded to those who are subjected to “custodial interrogation.” Id. The writ of habeas corpus cannot issue unless the decision of the state court “ ‘was contrary to’ federal law then clearly established in the holdings of [the Supreme] Court; or that it ‘involved an unreasonable application of such law; or that it ‘was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts’ in light of the record before the state court.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 100, 131 S.Ct. 770, 785, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011) (citations omitted). Moreover, relief must be denied unless “the state court’s ruling on the claim being presented in federal court was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.” Id. at 103, 131 S.Ct. at 786-87. We have carefully reviewed the record, including the transcript of the interrogation, and we are unable to say that Peel has met those standards. That is, she has not shown that the California Court of Appeal made unreasonable determinations of facts. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 340, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1041, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Nor are we able to say that in light of those facts the Court of Appeal’s determination that she was not in custody was unreasonable. We recognize that we have decided cases on direct review that might suggest a contrary conclusion, but those cannot be relied upon as a source of or to sharpen Supreme Court law for purposes of habeas corpus review of state decisions.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      
        .See, e.g., Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 660-65, 124 S.Ct. 2140, 2147-50, 158 L.Ed.2d 938 (2004); Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 437-39, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 3149-50, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984); California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 1125, 103 S.Ct. 3517, 3520, 77 L.Ed.2d 1275 (1983) (per curiam); see also Howes v. Fields, — U.S.-,-, 132 S.Ct. 1181, 1189-90, 182 L.Ed.2d 17 (2012).
     
      
      . Harrington, 562 U.S. at 102, 131 S.Ct. at 786.
     
      
      . See United States v. Craighead, 539 F.3d 1073, 1089 (9th Cir.2008); United States v. Kim, 292 F.3d 969, 974, 977 (9th Cir.2002); but see Kim, 292 F.3d at 978 (O’Scannlain, J., dissenting).
     
      
      . Marshall v. Rodgers, -U.S.-,-, 133 S.Ct. 1446, 1450-51, 185 L.Ed.2d 540 (2013) (per curiam); Parker v. Matthews, 567 U.S. -, -, 132 S.Ct. 2148, 2155-56, 183 L.Ed.2d 32 (2012) (per curiam).
     