N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. R AM IR O C ISNER OS-HER NANDEZ, AKA Arturo He rnande z -Duran, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-50056

D.C . No. 2:12-c r-00236-C AS-3
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia C hristina A. Sny de r, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 10, 2014 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : PREGER SON, NOONAN, a nd WA RDLAW , C irc uit Judge s . R am iro C isne ros-He rnan de z (“ C isne ros-He rna nde z ” ) a ppe a ls his
c onvic tions for c onspira c y to im port a t le a st 100 kilogra

m s of m arijua

na , im porta tion of a t le a s t 100 kilogra

m s of m a rijua n a , and posse s sion with inte nt to 

# F IL ED
JAN 16 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).distributeat le a st 100 kilogra m s of m arijua

na . C isne ros-He rnan de zc onte nds tha t the d istric t c o urt e rre d by de ny ing his m otion to suppre ss his M irandiz e d postarre st sta t e m e nts, a

nd tha t the e rror wa s not ha

rm le ss. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. B e c a

use the distric t c o urt c orre c tly de n ie d the m o tion to suppre ss, we a ffirm

the c onvic tion. Give n his phy sic a l an d m e nta l sta te a fte r be i ng shipwre c ke d on Sa n Nic ola s Isla nd 1 for thre e da

y s, the inte rrogation a

t the Unite d State s Na

vy fa c i lity on the isla nd, a nd the a l le ge d use of ha

ndc uffs during the inte rrogat ion, C isne rosHe rnande z argue s tha

t he involunta

rily wa ive d his M

iranda rights. The volunta rine ss of a

wa ive r of Miranda rights is re vie we d de novo. Unite d State s v . J e nnings , 515 F.3d 980, 986 (9th C ir. 2008). Thedistric t c ourt’ s unde rly ing fa c t ua l findings a

re re vie we d for c le ar e rror. U nite d State

s v . Doe , 155 F.3d 1070, 1074 (9th C ir. 1998). To de te rm ine whe the r a

c onfe ssion wa s volunta

ry , we foc us on “ ‘ whe the r the d e fe nda

nt’ s will wa s ove rborne by the c irc um s ta

nc e s surrounding the

giving of the c onfe ssion,’ an inquiry tha t ‘ take s into c onside ration thetota lity of a ll the

1 San Nic o la s isla

n d is a re m ote isla

nd in the C ha

nne l Isla n ds C h a in, loc ate d off the c oa st of Ve ntura

C ounty , C a l ifornia . It is e xc lusive ly oc c upie d by the Unite d State s Na

vy . The isla

nd is a se c ure d m ilita

ry fa c ility and only a

uthoriz e d pe rsonne l a

re pe rm itte d on the isla

nd. 2surrounding c irc um sta nc e s— both thec ha

ra c te ristic s of the a c c use d a nd the de ta ils of the inte rrogation.’ ” Unite d State s v . Pre ston , 751 F.3d 1008, 1016 (9th C ir. 2014) (e n ba

nc ) (a lte ra t i ons om itte d ) (quoting Dic k e rson v . Unite d State

s , 530 U.S. 428, 434 (2000)). The s e fa c tors a nd “ ‘ a ll of the surrounding c irc um sta nc e s
— the duration a nd c onditions of dete n tion (if thec onfe ssor ha s be e n de ta ine d), the
m anife s t attitudeof the polic e towa rd him , his phy sic a l a

nd m e nta l sta

te , the dive rse pre ssure s whic h sa p or susta in his powe rs of re s ista n c e and se lfc ontrol— [are ] re le va

nt.’ ” Id . (quoting C

ulombe v . C onne c tic ut , 367 U.S. 568, 602 (1961)). C onside ring the tota lity

of the c irc um sta

nc e s, C i sne ros-He rna

nde z ’ s will
wa s not ove rborne . First, the re is no e vide nc e tha t la w e n forc e m e nt offic e rs thre ate ne d or c oe rc e d C isne ros-He rnande z . C isne ros-He rnande z te stifie d tha t he fe lt he ha d no c hoic e but to a n swe r a ll the que stions during his inte rrogat ion be c a use he sa id a

n unide ntifie d fe de ra l a ge nt told him he would go “to prison for life ” if he did not c o ope rate . The distric t c ourt found this sta te m e nt inc re dible , howe v e r, be c a

use during thesuppre ssion he aring C isne ros-He rnande z “ w a s una ble to re c a ll the de t a ils of this alle ge d inc ide nt a nd m uc h of wha

t he did re m e m

be r
c onflic te d with his sworn de c la ra tion.” B e c a

use the re is no re lia

ble e vide nc e to support C isne ros-He rnande z ’ s c onte ntion tha t his sta te m e n ts ha d

be e n c oe rc e d by 3the unknown a ge nt’ s thre ats, the distric t c ourt’ s fa c tua l finding is not c le a rly
e rrone ous. Se e Doe , 155 F.3d a t 1074. On the c ontra

ry , rathe r tha

n be ing c oe rc ive , the two De pa rtm e nt of Hom e la nd Se c urity

(“ DHS” ) a ge nts who intervie we d C isne ros-He rnande z spoke
c a lm l y and profe ssiona lly

throughout the

inte rvie w. The inte rvie w wa s c onduc te d by those two a g e nts only . The inte rrogat ion wa s ke pt brie f a t a pproxim at e ly

one hour. M ore ove r, a lthough he c onte nds othe rwise , C isne ros-He rnande z wa s not he ld inc om

m unic a do. The a ge nts a dvise d C isne ros-He rna nde z , a M e xic an c itiz e n, that he c ould c onta c t the M e xic an C onsula te or a n attorne y at anytim e , y e t he
a ffirm ative ly

de c line d to do so. Se c ond, the phy sic a l a

nd e m o tiona l orde a l C isne ros-He rnande z ha d e ndure d did not re nde r his Miranda w a ive r and c onfe ssion involunta ry . B e fore he wa s inte rvie we d, C isne ros-He rnande z wa s give n food, wa te r, a bla nke t, a nd a pla c e to sle e p for se ve ra l hours in a he at e d room . M e d ic a l pe rsonne l c le a re d him for que stioning. One

of the two inte rrogating DHS a ge nts— who is a lso a

n Em e rge nc y M e d ic a l Te c hnic ia

n— c he c ke d C isne ros-He rnande z a ga in a nd found tha

t he
a ppe are d to be in good c ondition; did not e xhibit signs of de

hy dration or
c onfusion; a

nd wa s c oope ra tive , c ohe re nt, a n d re sponsiveto que stioning. Third, a lthough C isne ros-He rnande z argue s tha t he should ha

v e be e n ta

ke n 4to the m a inla nd for que stioning, the

re wa s good re a son for the DHS a ge nts to inte rrogate him

on the isla

nd: the a ge nts we nt to theisla nd to find a

nd c o lle c t
e vide nc e of possibledrug sm uggling a nd to de te rm ine whe t

he r the re we re any othe r pe ople on the isla

nd involve d in the a lle ge d c rim e . It wa s the re fore im porta nt to que stion C isne ros-He rna nde z at the sc e ne with m i nim a l de la y . Fina lly , c onside ring the tota lity of the c irc um sta

nc e s, the a lle ge d

use of ha ndc uffs did not re nde r the inte rrogation unduly c oe rc ive . The pa

rtie s c onte st whe the r C isne ros-He rnande z wa s ha ndc uffe d during theinte rvie w. Assum ing C isne ros-He rnan de zwa s ha ndc uffe d, he ha d fre e m ove m e nt of his ha nds a nd he
wa s a ble to e at tra il m ix a

nd drink se ve ra l c ups of c offe e during theinte rvie w. M ore o ve r, he ha d pre vious e xpe rie nc e with la w e nforc e m e nt a

nd with be ing ha ndc uffe d. Although C isne ros-He rnan de z a c knowle dge d tha t he ha d prior
e xpe rie nc e be ing ha

ndc uffe d , he te stifie d tha

t the re a son the ha

ndc uffs c o nc e rne d him during theinte rrogat ion on Sa n Nic ola s Isla

nd wa s the pre se n c e of the Unite d Stat e s Na vy . Ye t, he c ontra dic te d this sta te m e nt whe n he te stifie d tha t the Unite d Stat e s Na vy pe rsonne l tre ate d him

we ll, ga v e him food a nd wa te r, and we re “ we ll be have d.” B e c a

u se C isne ros-He rnande z ha d fre e use of his ha nds, ha d prior
e xpe rie nc e be ing ha

ndc uffe d , a

nd a dm itte d tha

t he ha d no re a son to bec onc e rne d for his sa fe ty , the a lle ge d u s e of ha ndc uffs did not re nde r the inte rrogation 5c oe rc ive
. Se e Gre e naw alt v . Ric k e tts , 943 F.2d 1020, 1027 (9th C ir. 1991) (finding
no c oe rc i ve polic e a c t ivity whe re Miranda wavie r wa s obta ine d from a ha ndc uffe d de fe nda n t whose re stra ints we re loose ne d upon his re que st, who ha d pre vious
e xpe rie nc e with thepolic e , a nd who wa s not tre ate d

roughly ). C onside ring the tota lity

of the c irc um sta

nc e s, C i sne ros-He rna

nde z ’ s will
wa s not ove rborne and his wa ive r and c onfe ssion we re volunta ry . He wa s not thre ate ne d by

the DHS a ge nts, but wa s inste a d give n food, wa te r, m e d ic a l tre atm e n t, a

bla nke t, a nd a pla c e to re st for se ve ra l hours be fore be ing inte rrogate d. The a ge nts we re polite ; the inte rvie w wa s brie f; a nd C isne ros-He rnande z kne w he
c ould c onta c t a

n attorne y or the M e x ic an C onsula

te if he wa

nte d a ssista nc e . He
a lso ha d pre v ious e xpe rie nc e with la w e nforc e m e nt in whic h he wa s ha n dc uffe d. Thus, thedistric t c ourt did not err in de ny ing C isne ros-He rna nde z ’ s m o tion to suppre ss. B e c a use we find C isne ros-He rnande z volunta rily wa ive d his Miranda rights,
we a ffirm the distric t c o urt’ s de nia l of the m otion to suppre s s a n d a ffirm the
c onvic tion. AFFIRM E D.

6