T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

Th e H o n o r ab l e M a tth e w F. K e n n e l l y , D i s tr i c tJ u d g e f o rth e U . S. ** D i s tr i c tC our tf

orN or the rn I l l i noi s , C hi c a go, s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on.

NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. AN TONI O G ON ZALE Z, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 10- 50382 D . C . N o. 3: 10 -c r- 00 03 0-JL S -1 ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J a ni s L . S a m m a r t i no, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d A ugus t3, 2011 P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: R E IN H A R D T and B E R Z O N , C i rc ui tJudg es , and K E N N E L L Y , D i stri ct Judg e. ** 

# FI LED AU G 24 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

D e f e nda nt - A ppe l l a ntA nt oni o G onz a l e z ( “ G onz a l e z ” ) w a s c onvi c t e d a nd se nt ence d for the offens e of a tt em pt i ng i l l egal l y t o ent erthe U ni t ed S t at es fol l ow i ng depo rt at i on , i n v i ol at i on of 8 U . S . C . § 1 32 6. H e app ea l s, ar gu i ng that there w as i nsuffi ci entevi dence t o sup po rthi s c on vi ct i on ; thatthe di stri ctcourt e rr e d in a d m ittin g in c r im in a tin g s ta te m e n ts m a d e b y G o n z a le z d u r in g a f ie ld in te rr o g a tio n c o n d u c te d w ith o u t Mi r anda w arni ng s; and thatthe go vernm entw as r e q u ir e d to p r o v e b e y o n d a r e a s o n ab le d o u b t th e f a c t o f a p r io rc o n v ic tio n . W e a f f i r m. 1 . G o n z a le z c h a lle n g e s th e s u f f ic ie n c y o f

th e e v id e n c e s u p p o r tin g h is c o n v i c t i o n wi th r e g a r d t o th e s u b s t a n t i a l s t e p e l e m e n to f a tt e m p t e d r e e n try . He a r g u e s th a t, b e c a u s e h e w a s u n d e rc o n s ta n t o f f ic ia l s u r v e illa n c e w h ile a tte m p tin g to e nt e rthe U ni t e d S t a t e s , the doc tr i ne of of f i c i a l r e s tr a i ntr e nde r e d c om pl e t i on of the offe nse l egal l y i m po ss i bl e a nd there by prevent ed hi m fr om t aki ng a s ub st ant i al s t e p t ow a r ds c om pl e t i on of the c r i m e . T hi s pos i t i on w a s r e j e c t e d i n U

ni ted Stat es v . L e os - M

aldonado , 3 0 2 F .3 d 1 0 6 1 , 1 0 6 3 - 6 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . G o n z a le z m a in ta in s th a t L e os - M aldonado di d notc ons i de rw he the rthe s ubs t a nt i a l a c tc oul d ha ve r e s ul t e d i n a c r i m e i f c a rr i e d t o c om pl e t i on, c ont e ndi ng tha tunde rthe c om m on l a w pr i nc i pl e s of a tt e m pti nc orpor a t e d i nt o § 1326 by G ra ci da s-Ul i b a rry , 231 F . 3d 1188, 1192- 94 ( 9th C i r . 2000) ( e n ba nc ) , the r e c a n be3

no att em pti f c om pl et i on of the cr i m e i s notpo ss i bl e. B u t L e os - M aldonado w as d e c id e d a f

te r , a n d to o k in to a c c o u n t, G ra ci da s-Ul i b a rry ; i nde e d, L e os - M aldonado poi nt e d outtha tthe de f

e nda nti n G ra ci da s-Ul i b a rry , w hos e c onvi c t i on the e n ba nc c our tul t i m a t e l y a f

f i r m e d, w a s h im s e lf

u n d e ro f f ic ia l r e s tr a in t a t th e tim e o f h is vi ol a t i on. 302 F . 3d a t1063 ( c i t i ng G ra ci da s-U l i b a rry , 231 F . 3d a t1191- 92, 1197- 9 8 ). W e are b o u n d b y L e os - M aldonado . I n a n y e v e n t, L e os - M aldonado ’ s hol di ng is c o n s is te n t w ith c o m m o n la w p r in c ip le s o f a tte m p t. See H

erna nd ez -Cruz v . H older , — F .3 d — , 2 0 1 1 W L 2 6 5 2 4 6 1 ( 9 th C ir . J u ly 8 , 2 0 1 1 ) . 2. G onz a l e z a l s o a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr one ous l y de ni e d hi s m ot i on t o s uppr e s s i nc r i m i na t i ng s t a t e m e nt s he m a de dur i ng a f i e l d i nt e rr oga t i on, w i thout h av i n g b een g i v en th e w arn i n g s req u i red b y Mi r anda v . A r i z ona , 384 U . S . 436 ( 1966) . W ha t e ve rm e r i tthe a r gum e ntm i ghtothe rw i s e ha ve , i tc a nnota va i l i n l i ght o f o u rc lo s e ly s im ila rp r e c e d e n ts . A suspec t ’ s c ust od i al st atus for Mi r anda pu rposes i s am i xed q uest i on of l aw a n d f a c t, w a rr a n tin g d e n o v o r e v ie w . Se e U ni te d State s v . B as s i

gnani , 575 F . 3dG on za l ez ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourt ' s f i nd i ng of re as on abl e s uspi ci on w as 1 c le a r ly e rr o n e o u s b e c a u s e th e r e w a s n o e v id e n c e o n w h ic h th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o u ld ha ve ba s e d i t s de c i s i on – e . g. , the r e w a s no a f f i da vi torw i tne s s t e s t i m ony f r om A ge ntP e s us i c h. I f

G onz a l e z m e a ns tha tA ge ntP e s us i c h l a c ke d e v e n r e a s o n ab le s u s p ic io n to s u p p o r t th e s to p , th a t c o n te n tio n w a s w a iv e d , b e c a u s e G o n z a le z 's Mi r anda ar gu m entre st s s qu ar el y on the prop osi t i on thatA gentP es usi ch had p r o b ab le c a u s e , a m o r e s tr in g e n t s ta n d a r d th a n r e a s o n ab le s u s p ic io n . 4 87 9, 88 3 (9th C i r. 20 09 ). W e r evi ew the fa ctual fi nd i ng s und er l yi ng the di stri ct c o u r t’s d e c is io n f

o rc le a re rr o r . I

d. 1 “A n o f f ic e r ’s o b lig a tio n to g iv e a s u s p e c t Mi r anda w arni ng s bef ore i nt errogat i on ext ends on l y t o tho se i nst ance s w here the i nd i vi du al i s ‘ i n cust od y. ’ ” U n ite d S ta te s v . Kim , 29 2 F . 3d 96 9, 97 3 (9th C i r. 20 02 ). “ T o d et erm i ne w hether an i nd i vi du al w as i n cust od y, a c ou rtm ust , af t erexam i ni ng al l of the ci rc um st ance s s urr oundi ng the i nt e rr oga t i on, de c i de w he the rthe r e [ w a s ] a f or m a l a rr e s tor re stra i nton fr ee do m of m ov em entof the degree a ss oci at ed w i th a form al arre st . ” I d . (q u o t at i o n m ark s o m i tt ed ) (al t erat i o n i n o ri g i n al ). In so d o i n g , th e co u rtm u st f oc us i t s i nqui ry “ on the obj e c t i ve c i r c um s t a nc e s of the i nt e rr oga t i on, notthe subj ec t i ve vi ew s of the offi ce rs or the i nd i vi du al bei ng qu es t i on ed. ” I d. U n d e rth is st andard, “ [a ] defe nd anti s i n cust od y i f are as on abl e i nn ocentpers on i n such c i r c um s t a nc e s w oul d c onc l ude tha ta f t e rbr i e f que s t i oni ng he ors he w oul d notbe fr ee t o l ea ve. ” B as s i

gnani , 57 5 F . 3d at88 3 (qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed).5

H e r e , the obj e c t i ve c i r c um s t a nc e s of G onz a l e z ’ s i nt e rr oga t i on di d not a m o u n t to c u s to d y u n d e ro u rp r e c e d e n ts . U n ite d S ta te s v . Me d in a - V

illa , 567 F . 3d 507, 519- 20 ( 9th C i r . 2009) , he l d tha tthe de f e nda ntw a s noti n c us t ody f or Mi r anda p u rp o s e s w h e r e th e b o r d e rp a tr o l a g e n t b lo c k e d th e d e f e n d a n t’s c a rto pr e ve nte s c ape , appr oa c he d w i th hi s gun dr a w n, a nd i nt e rr oga t e d the de f e nda nt r e g a r d in g h is c itiz e n s h ip a n d im m ig r a tio n s ta tu s . U n i ted S ta tes v. C erva n tesFlores , 421 F . 3d 825, 829- 30 ( 9th C i r . 2005) ( pe rc ur i a m ) , ove rrul e d i n pa r ton o th er g ro u n d s b y Me le n dez - D ia zv . M a s s a c h u s e tts , 12 9 S . C t . 25 27 (200 9), si m i l arl y co n cl u d ed th atth e d efen d an tw as n o ti n cu st o d y aft er h e w as ch ased b y a b o r d e rp a tr o l a g e n t th r e e q u a r te r s o f a m ile in to th e d e s e r t d u r in g th e e a r ly m orni ng , subd ued, and h andcuffed. G on za l ez w as no m ore r es tra i ned, no m ore is o la te d , a n d n o m o r e s u b je c t to la w e n f

o r c e m e n t d o m in a tio n th a n th e d e f e n d a n ts i n th o se cases. T ha tthe bor de rof

f i c e ri n C erva n tes-Flo res di d notha ve pr obabl e c a us e f or the a rr e s ti n tha tc a s e doe s notr e nde ri t s hol di ng i nappl i c abl e . A l though the e xi s t e nc e of

pr obabl e c a us e m a y “ be one f a c t ort o c ons i de ri n de t e r m i ni ng so m eo n e' s cu st o d i al st atu s i n th e tw i l i g h tzo n e b etw een d et en t i o n an d cu st o d y, w hatul t i m at el y m att er s t o the det erm i nat i on of w hether Mi r anda is tr ig g e r e d is c us tody , w hi c h i s de t e r m i ne d notby the e xi s t e nc e of pr obabl e c a us e , butby6

l oo ki ng t o the ‘ obj ec t i ve ci rc um st ance s of the i nt errogat i on . ’ ” U ni ted Stat es v. B ut l er , 249 F . 3d 1094, 1099 ( 9th C i r . 2001) ( e m pha s i s i n or i gi na l ) ( quot i ng S ta n s b u r y v . C a lifo r n ia , 5 1 1 U .S . 3 1 8 , 3 2 3 ( 1 9 9 4 ) ) . 3. F i na l l y , G onz a l e z a r gue s tha tthe gove rnm e ntw a s r e qui r e d t o pr ove b e y o n d a r e a s o n ab le d o u b t th e f a c t o f a p r io rc o n v ic tio n . T h a t c o n te n tio n is fo recl o sed b y U

ni t ed Stat es v. V

aldo vi no s-Mendez , 64 1 F . 3d 10 31 (9th C i r. 20 11 ), w h ic h c o n c lu d e d th a t “

A lm enda rez–T

orre s h as n o tb een o v erru l ed b y N i j haw an and con t i nu es t o con st i tut e bi nd i ng autho ri ty. ” I d. a t1036. AF F I RME D.