Defendant was “not under arrest.” (Defendant’s 11/15/2006 Aff. at ¶ 8.) Similarly, Special Agents Balicki and Testani testified that Defendant was not under arrest, that he was free to conclude the interview at any time, and that they advised him of this fact at the outset. Indeed, as discussed earlier, the agents testified that they had no intention of arresting Defendant, but instead sought his cooperation in an investigation into the activities of the Hizballah terrorist organization. It is clear, then, that Defendant had no constitutional right to the representation of counsel during his two meetings with the federal authorities. See Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 482, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 1883, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981); see also Burket v. Angelone, 208 F.3d 172, 197 (4th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Wyatt, 179 F.3d 532, 537
holding that the state courts determination that the petitioner could not show prejudice because he did not allege that the witness was available to testify was a reasonable application of federal law to the facts of the case holding miranda inapplicable because defendant not in custody holding do you think i need a lawyer to be ambiguous holding that the petitioner in that case could not invoke the protections provided by miranda  including the right to counsel because he was not in custody at the time he stated t think i need a lawyer  holding that appellants statement i think i need a lawyer     is just as ambiguous as the statement made by the defendant in davis