marijuana is smell they go to secondary there's a consent search of the vehicle in a duffel bag in the back mr wilson were mirandized and they both denied that they had any knowledge whatsoever about the cocaine since this was a remote area where the immigrations sto fuckers excuse the language but that's what was said by the da better admit to the cocaine by the time i get there and i don't feel like doing the paperwork so one of you don't fuckers better admit i'm going to have one of the border patrol put you in a cell and you better come up with who's cocaine it is meyers also told mr ravenel that he was tired first when he was arrested when the cocaine was discovered and then with the d a agent actually arrived at the immigration mr revenue twenty seven and he been to college well he said that he went to college on some sort of basketball scholarship or something that is just a clue from the record he certainly had some kind of high school education although as i pointed out in the brief you know his language was unusual he referred to blood clots as clots i had blood clocks my mother had blood clots one thing i didn't say in the in the brief he talked about when he was talking about a specific person or a specific whatever  problem here is that the district court said and the officer said no that never happened and he said it did happen in the district court which seems to be the officer so i'm not sure seems to be the primary one peel well part of the point is this ok and i think this is critical the final coersion just generally that it wasn't coercion is not a finding of fact it is a mere legal conclusion so isn't it based upon facts but it well you have to consider the facts and whether or not it was coercion becomes a question of law it becomes a question of law but it you know there were no facts to support a finding of no coercion then there'd be a problem but here we've got two different stories book both given to the judge and to the jury does that not mean anything you are in the position of the district court because you are required we have second guess when you consider all the facts in fact the standard is that you're supposed to consider the totality of evidence and that includes the statement that includes r oh well he's not credible in this area and the immigration agents are more credible that doesn't mean that this court just seeds the responsibility to the district court it's your responsibility to consider that totality of evidence and i think there's plenty of reason to to wonder about all this because whatever you intimidating statement i don't know that anybody could disagree with that maybe the district judge disagreed he said it wasn't coercion and it wasn't a threat the statement but that's just simply not true oh come on you've heard teenaged kids and young young men talk that way all the time locker room yes they do and you know that that may be the case but there's a you know i'm not arguing actual innocence because i don't know but i'll tell you what there's plenty of red flags in this record to indicate that rev and l falsely confessed to this crime and sure the business about the car was part and parcel of it and just because the district court said well they didn't say that they were going to take his car if he didn't confess but that certainly you could conclude from the record that the car was of considerable concern it is and he would didn't want to get that car back to his mother but he'd been threatened at the time and at that the combination of the threat the car placing him in that was wilson's dope i can't answer that question because i i'm not in the mind of a twenty seven year old black man being intimidated by a dea agent and i'll also point out another thing about the miranda warning you know which think this question of black versus white before the district court in all doesn't make any difference to what was before the district court no that's truly they didn't argue that but i think it's a legitimate argument in this court because this court have to consider intimidated by a d d e agent and we all know we don't live in a bubble around here we all know what black men are told by their mothers cooperate do what you're told watch out because they're dangerous and the defense team i don't think you have another i think i read your brief is raising a separate issue about the statement that officer meyer me and he seemed to be asking this court to impose sanctions or suppression as a sanction simply for that statement but i i don't see were about this request and have i'm not really interested in that i'm asking you about it was that ra both times he received the warnings orally and writing and both times he signed a written form waiving his right to be silent and agreeing to speak with the officers this is strong evidence  according to the supreme court maintaining that a statement is involuntary despite the valid provision of miranda warnings requires usual stamina this is because the supreme court carefully and why wouldn't we assume an officer myron made that egregious statement why wouldn't he assumed he was intimidating and it was an attempt to intimidate and that intimidation lasted into the subsequent interview when he showed repeat them the cursing but he also said i want you to be i've been working all day i'm tired and i expect you all to tell me the truth when you get out here and then he ordered that the two of them be put together in a cell by taking for five minutes exactly court should and ought to consider those matters the district court did consider those matters in this case this record was extremely mother mine tom that's correct the district court expressed concern about it he admonish to only record said that he felt the comments were inappropriate but people ultimately determined that this phone call and that the encounter the range encounter afterwards were not threatening that's a subsidiary factual finding this court reviews for clear error here i do think there are sufficient facts to support the district court's conclusion that the phone call was not threatening agent myers testified at the suppression hearing he testified that he was talking in a stern voice but he wasn't yelling or screaming at the defendant the defendant mr ravenel testified about this phone call both at the suppression hearing and then again at the trial and at the trial i was driving on she denied being afraid of age of marriage as a result of the phone call the situation he was facing letting him know it was serious that one of the two men would be going to jail and on and marching him to be honest that the tenth circuit has upheld similar techniques in the past as non coercive and i think the same  reasoning applies in this case even if the court disagrees and finds that these work threatening comments that's not the spots that that's not the end of the analysis we know from united states versus ro even if there's a threat that doesn't mean there was coercion once again the court always looks at the totality of the circumstances to determine if the defendant's will was over borne by the government's conduct if there was so much cooperation and that his capacity for self determination was critically and character here there is many other factors to counteract any potential government pressure most notably those two miranda warnings  have to answer these but i want to ask questions and the defendant said it's fine i'm referring here to going on one of the record on appeal page one ninety eight similarly agent miers during that phone call that's been that made some factual findings and then found just generally speaking that it was adopting the testimony of the agents thought the border patrol agents and the dea agents he said that he found the testimony of the agents credible and so that's why the government's relying on th testimony of the agents on appeal here today there are many other factors in this case as well that support of finding of voluntariness the defendant here was an adult at the time of the confession he had a high school diploma and some college education didn't finish college i they just stated that question reporter patrol was about a minute and the questioning from the d a was about thirty minutes according to him and so so this wasn't a case where there was you know three hours of questioning where they were already down the defense well according to the d getting the vehicle could you just briefly address how that might impact the analysis so on appeal i don't think it impacts in our sense at all in the district court that event argued that the reason he confessed in testified the only reason he confessed was to secure the release of the call so that it could go back to his family he claimed that the agents told him that if he signed this false confession that they would release the car the agents are all  that we must accept that there were no such promises in relation to the car so i opposing counsel i think today suggested that it still could be considered part of the town with me and i disagree with that yes the government was tr