In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit ____________________

No. 19-2867

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

NEHEMIAH R. FELDERS,

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.

____________________

ARGUED JULY 7, 2020 — DECIDED JULY 14, 2020

____________________

Before SYKES, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and KANNE,

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 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 appeal 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 court 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 argument 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 silent 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 

show 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 argument now 

presented on appeal by asking Price to read the card aloud, 

but the absence of this information cuts against Felders given the plain-error burden.

To get anywhere, 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 produce a 

copy would have been another. At trial Price testified that 
No. 19-2867 3

the state police issued the card he used, so it was an official 

document. Felders does not contend that the state distributed some cards that satisfy 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 possession 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 requirements.

AFFIRMED