### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 11-40548 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. JUAN M. AGUIRRE-FLORES, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:10-CR-2621-2

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Juan M. Aguirre-Flores entered a conditional plea to one count of possession with intent to distribute a quantity in excess of fiv e kilograms of cocaine. Aguirre-Flores’s plea was conditioned on the right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress his confession. He c o ntends that his confession w as involuntary due to the unreasonable detention of him and his family, as well as threats that his wife would be charged with a crime if he did not confess. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D March 19 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-40548 Document: 00511792631 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/19/2012No. 11-40548

We review the voluntari n e s s o f a confession de novo and the factual findings underlying a voluntariness determination for clear error. United States

v. Bell , 367 F.3d 452, 460-61 (5th Cir. 2004). A finding is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court is left with “the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Ornelas-Rodriguez , 12 F.3d 1339, 1347 (5th Cir. 1994) (internal citation and qu o t ation marks omitted). In determining whether a defendant has validly waived his Miranda rights, we must look at the 1 totality of the circumstances that surround the interrogation. United States v. Foy , 28 F.3d 464, 474 (5th Cir. 1994). If, under the totality of the circumstances, the statement results f r o m a f r e e and rational choice, then the statement is voluntary. Bell , 367 F.3d at 461. A defendant’s waiver of his Miranda rights is effective only if the relinquishment of the right to remain silent i s f r ee of “intimidation, coercion, or deception.” United States v. Cardenas , 410 F.3d 287, 293 (5th Cir. 2005). The record indicates that any delay was du e t o the nature of the investigation at the Unit e d S t ates border, and necessary to determine which occupants of the vehicle were involved in the smuggling of the cocaine into the country. See United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 544 (1985). Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record that any delay on the part of the United States Custom and Border Patrol (CBP) officers was for the purpose of extracting a confession from Agu irre-Flores, or that the delay caused him to confess. See United States v. Mullin , 178 F.3d 334, 342 ( 5th Cir. 1999). Additionally, Aguirre-Flores’s desire to extricate his wife from prosecution does not r e n d e r his confession involuntary since the record indicates that the CBP officers had a good faith basis to arrest his wife. See Allen v. McCotter , 804 F.2d 1362, 1364 (5th Cir. 1986); United States v. Diaz , 733 F.2d 371, 375 (5th Cir. 1984). Given the totality of the circumstances, there is no evidence that AguirreMi ra nda v. A rizo na , 384 U. S. 436( 1966)

. 1
2 Case: 11-40548 Document: 00511792631 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/19/2012No. 11-40548

Flores ’ s c onfession was the result of “intimidation, coercion, or deception.” Cardenas , 410 F.3d at 293; Bell , 367 F.3d at 461. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying his motion to suppress. AFFIRMED.

3 Case: 11-40548 Document: 00511792631 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/19/2012