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. JAM ES POSTLETHWAITE, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-30126

D.C . No. 2:12-c r-00036-JC C -1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington John C . C oughe nour, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

July 10, 2014 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : TASHIM A a

nd M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s , a n d C AR NEY, Distric t Judge . ** De fe nda nt-a ppe l la nt Ja m e s Postle thwa ite a

ppe a l s his jury

c onvic tion for c onspira c y

to distribute

m a rijua na . W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . 

# FIL ED JUL 31 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at 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 Honora

ble C orm a c J. C arne y , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.B e fore the distric t c o urt, Postle thwa ite m ove d to suppre ss the sta

te m e nts he m a de on the da

y of his a rre st on thre e se pa

rat e grounds: (1) Postlethwa ite wa s in c ustody a s soon a s he wa s de ta ine d a nd should ha

ve be e n give n Miranda warnings im m e diate ly ; (2) offic ia l s de libe rat e ly withhe ld Miranda warnings a t first a nd only late r gave the wa

rnings, in viola

tion of Missouri v . Se ibe rt , 542 U.S. 600 (2004), re nde ring his sta

t e m e nts ina dm i ssible ; a

nd (3) Postle thwa ite ’ s wa ive r of his Miranda rights wa s involunta ry be c a use of the c irc um sta

nc e s of his de te ntion. The distric t c o urt de nie d the m otion to suppre ss on a ll thre e grounds, a nd Postle thwa ite wa s c onvic te d by a jury

of c onspira c y

to distribute

m arijua na . On a ppe a l, Postle thwa ite c onte nds tha t two sta te m e nts in pa

rtic ula r he m a de just a fte r his a

rre st should ha

v e be e n suppre sse d be c a

u se the y we re pa rt of his invoc ation of his right to c ounse l a nd thus inadm issibleunde r the Fifth Am e ndm e nt. S

e eUnite d State

s v . Bushy he ad , 270 F.3d 905 (9th C ir. 2001). Postle thwa ite argue s tha

t the distric t c o urt e rre d in a llowing the Gove rnm e nt to introduc e and e m

p ha s iz e those two sta

te m e nts in its c a se -in-c h ie f. Howe ve r, Postle thwa ite a c knowle dge s tha t he ne ithe r argue d this pa rtic ula r ba sis for suppre ssion to the

distric t c ourt nor c ite d Bushy he ad or re late d

pre c e de nt be low. Unde r Fe de ra l R

ule s of C rim ina l Proc e d

ure 12(b) a

nd 12(e ), a

de fe nda nt m ust m ake any m otion to suppre s s e vide nc e be fore tria l a n d a fa ilure to do so, a

b se nt 2good c a

use , re sults in waive r. W e have c l arifie d tha t, “ just a s a fa ilure to file a tim e ly m otion to suppre ss e v i de nc e c onstitute s a wa i ve r, so too doe s a fa ilure to ra ise a partic u lar ground

in support of a

m o tion to suppre ss.” U

nite d State

s v . Murillo , 288 F.3d 1126, 1135 (9th C ir. 2002) (e m pha sis a dde d ) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d). B y

fa iling to a

rgue to the distric t

c o urt tha t his two sta

te m e nts we re pa rt of his invoc ation of his right to c ounse l a nd we re thus ina dm issible , Postle thwa ite ha s wa ive d tha t ground for suppre ssion. He ha s pla c e d the issue–his sole issue on a

p pe a l–“ be y ond the sc ope of our a bility to re v ie w [e ve n ] for pla in e rror.” Id. B e c a

use we are una

ble to re vie w Postle t

hwa i te ’ s issueon a

ppe a l, we a ffirm . 1 AFFIRM E D.

1 The re is no c la im

be fore us of ine ffe c t ive a s sista nc e of c ounse l ba se d on c ounse l’ s fa ilure to m ake a Bushy he ad argum e nt in thedistric t c ourt, so wedo not c onside r suc h a

c la im . 3