### In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

____________________ No. 19

- 2867 U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
N EHEMIAH R. F ELDERS , Defendant

- Appellant

.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana , South Bend Division. No. 3:18CR109

- 001

— Robert L. Miller , Jr. , Judge

.

____________________ A RGUED J ULY 7, 2020

— D ECIDED J ULY 14, 2020

____________________
Before S YKES , Chief Judge , and E ASTERBROOK and K ANNE , Circuit Judges

. P ER C URIAM

. A jury convicted Nehemiah Felders of possessing a firearm, despite a felony conviction making this unlawful. 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1). He was sentenced to 96 months’ imprisonment. His sole argument on a ppeal is his statements should have been suppressed, because the police did not give him the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966 )

.2 No. 19

- 2867
Felders testified at a hearing that the police had not given him warnings of any kind. Officer Jonathan Price testified, to the contrary, that he had taken from his credential case a card with warnings and read Felders the advice on that card. The district judge believed Price and disbelieved Felders, which led him to deny the motion to suppress the statements that Felders made to Price and other officers. In this cou rt Felders no longer denies that Price read him warnings from a card. Instead he contends that the record does not show that the statements read from the card satisfy Miranda . Because Felders did not make such an ar gument to the district court, appellate review is for plain error. See United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725 (1993 )

. Yet the record is silent about what was on the card from which Price read. Felders has the burden of persuasion, id . at 734

– 35, and on a sil ent record he cannot show that any error occurred

— not when the warnings were read, not in the district court. The judge was available to hear the parties’ evidence. That Felders did not ask Price for details does not sho w that the judge made a mistake

. Someone who invokes plain

- error review on a silent record has lifle chance of success. See, e.g., United States v. Williams , 946 F.3d 968 (7th Cir. 2020); United States v. Ramirez , 606 F.3d 396 (7th Cir. 2010). The district judge could have avoided the a rgument now presented on appeal by asking Price to read t he card aloud,but the absence of this information cuts against Felders given t he plain

- error burden. To get a nywhere , Felders needed to show what was on the card. Asking Price to read it, or produce a copy, would have been one way to do that. Asking the police to pro duce a copy would have been another. At trial Price testified thatNo. 19

- 2867 3
the state police issued the card he used, so it was an official document. Felders does not contend that the state distri buted some cards that satis fy Miranda and some that do not

. Nor does he contend that someone else, such as The Onion , has produced wallet cards purporting to be from the state police but containing doctored warnings. Evidence that the card in Price’s posse ssion could have been defective or satirical might have persuaded us to remand for a hearing. But we are not aware of any reason to believe that Indiana, or any other state, distributes warning cards that fail to satisfy the Supreme Court’s require ments. A FFIRMED