Case ID: f-appx_234/html/0612-01.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. Rudolph Deandre HALL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-10628.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 5, 2007.
    
    Filed June 14, 2007.
    Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Alexandra Paradis Negin, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: LEAVY, RYMER and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rudolph Deandre Hall appeals from the district court’s denial of his suppression motion, following which he entered a conditional guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Hall contends that the district court clearly erred by finding that he knowingly and intelligently waived his constitutional rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), before making a videotaped statement to police. We conclude that the district court properly denied the suppression motion. See United States v. Rodriguez-Preciado, 399 F.3d 1118, 1127 (9th Cir.2005).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.