T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. V I C T O R I A M. J I M, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 11- 30102 D . C . N o. 2: 09 -c r- 02 03 5-E F S -2 ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe E a s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on E dw a r d F . S he a , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r9, 2012

S e a tt l e , W a s hi ngt on B efo re: K O Z IN S K I, C h i ef Ju d g e, T A S H IM A an d M . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. D ef endant -A pp el l antV i ct ori a J i m ar gu es thatshe w as subj ec tt o cust od i al i nt errogat i on w i tho utbei ng advi se d o f herri gh t s und er Mi r anda v . A r i z ona , 384 U .S . 4 3 6 ( 1 9 6 6 ) , b u t s h e d id n o t b r in g am o tio n to s u p p r e s s o n th is b a s is p r io rto 

# FI LED NO V 27 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

tr i a l . F a i l ur e t o br i ng am ot i on t o s uppr e s s pr i ort o tr i a l w a i ve s the i s s ue f or ap p e a l. U

n ite d S ta te s v . Mu r illo , 2 8 8 F .3 d 1 1 2 6 , 1 1 3 5 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . A l tho ug h w e m ayi n o ur di sc re t i on addres s the Mi r anda i ssu e fo r “ cau se show n, ” i d. ; U

ni te d State s v . R e s tr e

po- R ua , 81 5 F . 2d 13 27 , 13 29 (9th C i r. 19 87 ), J im h a s p r o v id e d n o e x p la n a tio n f o rh e rf a ilu r e to b r in g th e m o tio n p r io rto tr ia l. Se e U ni te d State s v . W

r i ght , 21 5 F . 3d 10 20 , 10 26 (9th C i r. 20 00 ). In an o p i n i o n fi l ed co n t em p o ran eo u sl y w i th th i s M em o ran d u m , i n th e case of U ni te d State s v . W

ahc hum w ah , N o. 11- 30101, w e de t e rm i ne d tha tC ount s 4 a nd 5 o f the i nd i ctm enti nv ol vi ng R i cky W ahchum w ah, Ji m ’ s c o-defendant , ar e m u ltip lic ito u s . B o th J im a n d W a h c h u m w a h a r e n a m e d in C o u n ts 4 a n d 5 , a n d J im chal l enged the coun t s a s m ul t i pl i ci t ou s a ttri al . H ow ever , on l y W ahchum w ah appe a l e d the i s s ue . “ W e ‘ w i l l notor di na r i l yc ons i de rm a tt e r s on appe a l tha ta r e not spec i fi ca l l y and di st i nct l y argued i n app el l ant ' s openi ng bri ef . ’ ” U ni ted Stat es v. Ul lah , 976 F . 2d 509, 514 ( 9th C i r . 1992) ( quot i ng Mi l lerv. Fai rc hi ld Indus. , Inc. , 797 F . 2d 727, 738 ( 9th C i r . 1986) ) . H ow e ve r , “ w e m a yr e vi e w a n i s s ue i f the f a i l ur e t o r a i s e the i s s ue pr ope r l ydi d notpr e j udi c e the de f

e ns e of the oppos i ng party. ” I d. H e r e , th e g o v e rn m e n t f u llya d d r e s s e d th e m u ltip lic ityis s u e in its a ns w e r i ng br i e f

t o W a hc hum w a h a nd ha s notbe e n pr e j udi c e d. T hus , f

orthe re as on s a dd re ss ed i n the W ahc hum w ah opi ni on, one of J i m ’ s c onvi c t i ons on3

C ount s 4 a nd 5 m us tbe va c a t e d. W e l e ave t o the di s tr i c tc ourtthe de c i s i on of w h ic h c o u n t to v a c a te .

A F F I R M E D in p a r t a n d R E V E R S E D A N D R E M A N D E D in p a r t .