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. B ER NARDO B UENAVENTUR A VELASQUEZ, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-50484

D.C . No. 3:14-c r-02053-LAB -1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Larry A. B urns, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Oc tobe r 23, 2015 * * Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : KLEINFELD, R

AW L INSON, an d

NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. De fe nda nt B e rnardo B ue nave ntura -Ve la sque z (“ B ue nave ntura ” ) wa s c onvic te d of two c ounts of a tte m pte d tra nsporta tion of ille g a l a l ie ns. 8 U.S.C . §



# F IL ED JAN 14 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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).1324(a )(1)(A)(ii). B ue nave ntura argue s tha

t his post-a

rre s t sta te m e nts to a ge nts should ha ve be e n suppre sse d be c a

u se the y we re involunta

rily m a de . In the a lte rna tive , B ue nav e ntura argue s tha

t his post-a

rre st sta te m e nts should ha

ve be e n suppre sse d be c a

use his M iranda

wa ive r wa s not knowing a nd inte llige n t. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . §§ 1291 a n d 1294(1). W e a ffirm . B ue nave ntura

a lle ge d tha

t his post-a

rre st sta te m e nts we re involunta

ry be c a use the a g e nts who interrogate d him prom ise d him , off-c am e ra and be fore the a c tua l inte rroga tion, to he lp him ke e p his le ga l pe rm a

n e nt re side nt (LPR) status in e xc ha nge for his c oope ra tion. B oth a ge nts involve d in the inte rrogation de nie d the e xiste nc e of suc h a

prom ise . Afte r c onduc ting a he aring, the distric t c ourt found that the a ge nts did not prom

ise B ue nave ntura

any he lp with his im

m igration sta

tus. The distric t c ourt he ld tha t B ue nave ntura ’ s c onfe ssion wa s volunta ry , a nd tha t the M iranda wa rnings we re prope rly

a dm iniste re d . B ue nave ntura

argue s tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d in de te rm ining tha t no prom ise w a s m a de and c onc lude s tha t this prom

ise m a d e his c onfe ssion involunta ry . 2“ W e re vie w de novo the volunta rine s s of a

c o nfe ssion a

n d the fa c tua l findings supporting the

de te rm ination for c le ar e rror.” Unite d State s v. He l le r, 551 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th C ir. 2009). Thete st for a volunta ry sta te m e nt is whe the r
“ c o nside ring the tota lity

of the c irc um sta

nc e s, the gove rnm e nt obta ine d the sta te m e nt by phy sic a l or psy c hologic a l c oe rc ion or by im p rope r induc e m e nt so tha t the s uspe c t's will wa s ove rborne .” Unite d State s v. Le o n Gue rre ro, 847 F.2d 1363, 1366 (9th C ir. 1988). Thegove rnm e nt m ust prove the volunta

rine ss of the sta te m e nt “by

a p re ponde ranc e of the e vide nc e .” Id. at 1365. He re , the gove rnm e n t prove d tha t B ue nave ntura ’ s sta

te m e n t wa s volunta

ry . The tria l c ourt’ s c onc lusion a t the suppre ssion he aring tha t no prom ise wa s m a de wa s pe rm issiblean d not c l e ar e rror in light of the te stim ony , B ue n a

v e ntura ’ s c ha ra c te ristic s , the c irc um s ta nc e s of the inte rrogation, a nd othe r e vide nc e pre s e nte d. Se e Unite d

State s v. Pe re z -Lope z , 348 F.3d 839, 844–45 (9th C irc . 2003). In thea

bse nc e of the p rom ise , the re wa s nothing to indic a te tha t the c onfe s sion wa s involunta ry . Se e Unite d State s v. Ha swood, 350 F.3d 1024, 1027–29 (9th C ir. 2003)
.

3Alte rna tive ly , B u e nave ntura argue s his subje c tive be l ie f in a prom ise m a de his M iranda

wa ive r, though volunta

ry , not “ inte llige nt a

nd knowing.” A va lid M iranda wa ive r m ust be “ volunta

rily , knowingly , a

nd inte llige ntly give n.” Unite d

State s v. Doe , 155 F.3d 1070, 1074 (9th C ir. 1998). For a wa ive r to be knowing a

nd inte llige nt, it m

ust be m a de with a

“ full a ware ne ss of both the nature of the right be i ng a ba ndone d a nd the c onse que nc e s of the de c ision to a ba ndon it.” M oran v. B urbine , 475 U.S. 412, 421 (1986)
. W he the r a wa ive r wa s knowing a

nd inte llige nt is a

que stion of fa c t, a

n d we re v ie w the tria l c ourt’ s c onc lusion on this issue for c le ar e rror. Doe , 155 F.3d a t 1074. The tria l c ourt did not c le arly e rr in c onc luding thewa ive r wa s knowing a nd inte llige nt, a

n d its sta te m e nts re ga

rding B ue nav e n tura ’ s de sire to re c e ive a be ne fit for c o ope ra ting do not c om pe l a diffe re nt c o nc lusion. B u e nave n t ura wa s a dvise d in his na tive tongue , he a

ppe are d to unde rsta

nd his rights, a

nd signe d a

writte n wa ive r writte n in Spa

nish. Se e Unite d State s v. C re w s, 502 F.3d 1130, 1140 (9th C ir. 2007)
. M ore ove r, B u e nav e ntura ha d pre v ious e xpe rie nc e with thejustic e sy ste m inform ing him

of his right to rem a in sile n t.

4AFFIRM E D.

5