of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.” Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 322, 114 S.Ct. 1526, 128 L.Ed.2d 293 (1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). Examining the totality of the circumstances, see Alvarado v. Hickman, 316 F.3d 841, 846 (9th Cir.2002) (as amended after denial of rehearing and rehearing en banc), we hold that the California Court of Appeal’s conclusion that Romero was not in custody during the first hour and twenty minutes of the videotaped interview prior to receiving his Miranda warnings was not a decision that was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law,” as is required for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) (“AEDPA”). See Bains v. Cambra, 204 F.3d 964, 972, 977-78 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the district court properly denied
holding that appellants complaint on appeal that the environment was coercive did not change the fact that he was not in custody when he voluntarily went to the police station was told several times he could leave and did leave after the interrogation holding that a de facto arrest had occurred where petitioner was not questioned briefly where he was found  but rather was taken  to a police car transported to a police station and placed in an interrogation room holding that the state court ruling was objectively unreasonable where prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence that the petitioner murdered a known drug dealer although the state established that the petitioner planned to rob drug dealers for drugs or money the victim was a known drug dealer who kept drugs in his freezer and that freezer was open and empty after the homicide the petitioner and the victim had engaged in drug transactions in the past the petitioner had a motive because he had seen the victim make a pass at the petitioners girlfriend and the petitioner had possessed and once purchased the murder weapon and a similar gun was seen in his home two weeks before the murder evidence placing the petitioner at the scene was conspicuously absent leaving only a reasonable speculation that the petitioner was present holding that the state courts determination that petitioner was not in custody was not unreasonable under aedpa where the petitioner voluntarily went to the police station was interviewed by three police officers and one polygraph examiner was deceitfully told that another man had implicated him in a murder and was questioned for four hours before being advised of his miranda rights holding that a defendant who voluntarily rode to the station with officers in a police car waited in a lobby with unlocked external doors and was told more than once he was not under arrest was not in custody