Defendant’s request to return to his jail cell was not an invocation of his right to remain silent. DeWeaver argued that he had invoked his right to remain silent when, during an interrogation, he asked to return to his jail cell. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition because it could not conclude the state court’s application of the rule in Davis v. United States (1994) 512 U.S. 452 (requiring clear and unambiguous invocation of right to counsel), to petitioner’s claimed invocation of the right to remain silent was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. This was because the Supreme Court has neither “squarely addressed” when an ambiguous statement amounts to an invocation of the right to remain silent, nor refused to extend the Davis rule to an invocation of the right to remain silent. The court further held the state appellate court’s decision was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent, or an unreasonable factual determination, because the record gave no indication that petitioner’s confession was other than the product of his free will after police officers gave him warnings and obtained a valid waiver.