The Clerk of the Court is instructed to confor m the officia l caption in acc ordanc e 1 here with. 10 -03 57 -cr United S tates v

. Bing Y i Chen 

### UNITED ST

A TES COUR

T OF APPEALS FO R T HE SE CON D C IRCU IT SUM M AR

Y O RD ER R U L IN G S BY S U MMA R Y OR D E R D O N OT HA

V E PRE C E D E N T IA L E FFE C T. C IT A T ION T O A SU MMAR

Y ORDE R FILED ON OR A FTER JA NU AR

Y 1, 2007 , I S PERMITT ED A ND IS G OV E RN E D BY T HIS C OU R T ’S L OC A L R U L E 3 2. 1. 1 A N D FE D E R A L R U L E OF AP P ELLA

TE PRO CEDURE 32.1. WH EN CITING A SUMMAR Y ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FIL E D W IT H T HIS C OU R T , AP A R T Y MU S T C IT E E IT HE R T HE FE D E R

A L A PPE N D IX

OR AN ELECTRONIC DA T AB ASE (WI TH TH E NOT A TIO N “SUMM AR

Y ORDER”) . A P

AR TY C IT IN G AS U MMA R

Y OR D E R MU S T S E R

V E AC OPY OF IT ON A N Y P A R T Y N OT RE PRES EN TE D BY C OUNS EL . At a stated T

erm of the United S tates Court of Appe als for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan United S tates Courthouse, 500 Pear l S tree t, in the Cit y of Ne w Y

ork, on the 18 day

of May , two thousand eleve n. th Pr e se nt: RA L PH K . WI NT ER, RO SEM AR

Y S. POO L ER, B ARRI NG T OND. P

ARKE R, Cir cuit Judges

.

____________________________________________________ UNI TED ST

A TES OF AMERI CA, Appellee ,
-v .- 10-0357-c r BI NG YI CHEN, Defendant- Appellant

. 1

For Appellant: Alice F ontier, Jos hua L . Dratel, L aw Of fice s of J oshua L . Dratel, P.C., New Y ork, NY

. D av i d A

. R uh n k e , R uh n k e & B ar

r e t t , M o n t c l a i r , N J.-2-

For Appellee : Michae l M. Rosensaft, J esse M. F urman, Assistant United S tates

Attorney s, for Preet B hara ra, United S tates Attorney for the Souther

n District of Ne w Y

ork, Ne w Y

ork, NY

. Appea l from the United S tates District Court for the Southern District of Ne w Y ork (B atts, J. ). ON CO NSI DE RA

TIO N W HEREOF , IT I S HEREBYOR DE RE D , AD JU DG ED , AND DE CREED that th e jud g me nt o f s a id d ist ri c t c ourt be and he re by is AF F IRM ED

. Ap pe lla nt B ingY i Ch e n a pp e a ls a n o rd e r o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt

de nyinghis mot ion

to su pp re ss c e rt a in p os t- a

rr e st, inc ulp a tor

y state me nts that he a lle g e s w e re g ive n in vio latio n o f h is Six th Amendment rig ht to counsel. Specifica lly , althoug h Chen executed a written Miranda waiver , he ar g ues that the wa iver c ould not have bee n “knowingand intellige nt” bec ause he was not informed, at the time he g ave the statements, that he ha d been “ indicted.” In revie wing the denial of a motion to suppress evidenc e, we revie w the district cour t’s conclusions of lawde novo and its finding s of fa ct for c lear err or, taking those fac ts in the light most favora

ble to the g overnme nt. United S tates v . Lucky , 569 F .3d 101, 105-06 (2d Cir. 2009). “[W ]e may

af firm on any

basis for whic h there is suf ficient support in the re cord, inc luding g rounds not relied on by

the District Court.” Ferran v . T own of Nas sau , 471 F .3d 363, 365 (2d Cir. 2006). The Six th Amendment rig ht to counsel attac hes upon indictment; it “does not arise a t the time of arr est upon a wa

rra nt following the filing of

a complaint.” Un ite d S

tates v . S mi th , 778 F

. 2 d 9 2 5 , 9 3 2 (2 d

C i r. 1 9 8 5 ) ( ci t i n g Un ite d S tates v . D uv all , 5 37 F .2 d 1 5, 22 (2 d Ci r. 1 97 6) ); see als o R othge ry

v . G ill esp ieCou nty , 554 U.S. 191, 198 (2008) (“ W e have , for pur

poses of the r ight to c ouns e l, p e g g e d c omm e nc e me nt t o th e ini tiatio n o f a dv e rs ary jud ic ia l c ri min a l pr oc e e din g s— whether by way of for mal char g e, pre liminary

hear ing, indictment, infor mation, or arr aig nment.” (interna l quotation marks omitted).) In this case, a lthough the district c ourt did not consider the timing of the indictment, the r ecor d makes c lear that Chen was indicted on July 2, 2003, one month after

he wa s questioned. Acc ording ly , he had no Sixt h Amendment rig ht to counsel when he wa s questioned and his appe al would fa il on this basis alone. Ho we ve r, e ve n if

Che n h a d b e e n in dic te d at th e tim e he g ave the state me nts , th e law i n this jurisdi ction does not requir e that an indicte d defe ndant be g iven notice of the indictment at the time of questioning . As we e x plained in Un ite d S tates v . Ch ar ria , 9 19 F .2 d 8 42 , 8 48 (2 d Ci r. 19 90 ), “ g ivi ngan in dic te d d e fe nd ant Miranda war nings is suf

ficient to make a ‘know ing a nd intelligent’ waiver

of the sixt h amendment r ight to counse l, even if the defe ndant has not bee n expressly informed of

the indictment pendingag ainst him.” Id. Che n’ s ar g ume nt t hat Cha rri a i s n o tgo o d

l aw i nth i s j uri s d i ct i o ni s m i s p l ac ed

. Al th o u gh a pane l of this Court in Un ite d S tates v . M oh ab ir , 624 F .2d 1 140 (2d Cir. 1980), imposed require ments in addition to Miranda that had to be c ompleted bef ore a Six th Amendment waive r-3-

could be e f

fec tuated, the Supre me Court in Pa tte rso n v . I lli no is , 487 U.S. 285 (1988), re jected the ce ntral holding in Mo ha bir . 487 U.S. at 295 n.8. The Patterson Court did not address the question of whethe r an indicte d defe ndant was e ntitled to be informed of the fac t of an indictment before a Six th Amendment waive r could be considere d valid, see id. ; however , as we made c lear

in Cha rri a , “Patterson’s pr a g matic a pp ro a c h s up e rs e de [d] th e pr e vio us ru lin g s o f t his circ uit which, based on the conce pt of a hier arc hy of constitutional rig hts, called for a hig her ‘knowingand intellige nt’ standar d for sixt h amendment wa ivers than f or other w aiver s.” 919 F .2 d at 84 7. Re qu ir ingthat an in dic te d d e fe nd ant b e inf or me d o f t he ind ic tme nt p e nd inga g a ins t him before a Six th Amendment waive r could be ef fec tive was pa

rt of that hier arc hy

, and the Cha rri a Court corre ctly

reje cted it on those g rounds. W e have considere d Appellant’s r emainingar g uments and find them to be without merit. F or the fo re g oin g re a so ns , th e jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt

is AF F IRM ED

.
F O R T H E C O U RT: Catherine O ’Ha g an W

olfe, Clerk