Case ID: f-appx_374/html/0723-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roberto ORTIZ-LARREYNAGA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-50523.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted March 2, 2010.
    Filed March 24, 2010.
    Gregory Francis Noonan, Assistant U.S. Attorney, James Peter Melendres, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
    Joshua J. Jones, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: RYMER and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and KENNELLY, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Roberto Ortiz-Larreynaga (“Ortiz”) appeals his conviction after trial for violations of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960 (importation of marijuana) and 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (possession with intent to distribute marijuana). Ortiz contends that incriminating statements used at trial against him should have been suppressed because the Miranda warnings given to him by the interrogating border patrol agents were inadequate, rendering his waiver of those rights invalid. We affirm.

Following Ortiz’s arrest at the San Ysi-dro Port of Entry, border patrol agents interviewed Ortiz, first obtaining biographical data and then informing him of his right to contact the El Salvadorian consulate, which he declined. The evidence shows that the agents accurately advised Ortiz of each of his Miranda rights, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and told him that if he understood each right to initial the written Statement of Rights and Waiver form. After the reading of each right, Ortiz said “yes” and initialed the place in the waiver form pertaining to the right. Before'any incriminating information was elicited from Ortiz, he was asked to read aloud a statement from the waiver form confirming that each of his rights was read and explained, that he fully understood those rights, and that he waived them freely and voluntarily, without threat, intimidation, or any promises. Ortiz then asked, “I don’t get no immunity?” and an agent clearly stated that Ortiz had not been promised anything. Ortiz then signed the waiver form. The district court denied Ortiz’s motion to suppress, reasoning that the “facts and circumstances ... establish that [Ortiz] knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights and voluntarily made statements to the agents.” We agree.

Ortiz contends that during the reading of his rights the agents made statements undercutting and confusing the warnings that (1) he had the right to remain silent, and (2) any statement he made could be used against him in court. However, each of the statements of which he complains was made after Ortiz had already indicated that he understood each of his individual Miranda rights. See Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 421, 106 S.Ct. 1135, 89 L.Ed.2d 410 (1986). The most troubling of the agents’ statements — that providing the agents with his version of the events would put Ortiz “in a better light” — followed the agents’ clear statement that there was nothing the agents could do for him other than write down Ortiz’s side of what happened, and the evidence fails to show any signs that Ortiz was confused by this statement. Cf. United States v. San Juan-Cruz, 314 F.3d 384, 387-88 (9th Cir.2002). Moreover, Ortiz had no difficulties with mental capacity or language that would suggest he did not understand his rights, see United States v. Bernard S., 795 F.2d 749, 751-52 (9th Cir.1986), and his will was not overborne, see United States v. Leon Guerrero, 847 F.2d 1363, 1366 (9th Cir.1988).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . The interview was both videotaped and transcribed; we have reviewed both.