
    Demeko HOLLAND, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Patrick GLEBE, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 14-35908.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Feb. 5, 2016.
    Filed Feb. 18, 2016.
    Nancy Tenney, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    
      John Joseph Samson, Assistant Attorney General, Olympia, WA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN and GOULD, Circuit Judges and BURNS, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Larry A. Bums, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Demeko Holland asks us to reverse the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus. The facts of this case are known to the parties, and we do not repeat them here. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Holland argues that the Washington Court of Appeals unreasonably determined that he validly waived his Miranda rights. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2), (e)(1). We disagree. Following arrest, police read Holland his rights and Holland affirmatively acknowledged that he understood them and proceeded to speak with police. See Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370, 384, 130 S.Ct. 2250, 176 L.Ed.2d 1098 (2010). Although Holland had consumed drugs the night before, he was lucid during questioning and recounted in great detail the events of the previous night and the morning before the murder. Likewise, the Court of Appeals reasonably concluded that Holland’s comment that he did not want to give a written statement suggested only that Holland did not wish to be tied down to a single version of the facts. Considering the totality of the circumstances surrounding Holland’s waiver, the Washington Court of Appeals’s conclusion was well within reason. See North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 374-75, 99 S.Ct. 1755, 60 L.Ed.2d 286 (1979).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     
      
      . Because the Washington Supreme Court declined to review Holland’s appeal, the decision by the Washington Court of Appeals is the "last reasoned decision.” See Dyer v. Hombeck, 706 F.3d 1134, 1137 (9th Cir.2013) (quoting Collins v. Runnels, 603 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir.2010)).
     