PUBLISH

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff–Appellee, 

v. 

BRYAN BERRES, 

Defendant–Appellant. 

No. 14-7008 

 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

 for the Eastern District of Oklahoma 

(D.C. No. 6:13-CR-00049-RAW-1)

 

Carl Folsom, III, Assistant Federal Public Defender (Julia L. O’Connell, Federal Public 

Defender; and Robert Ridenour, Assistant Federal Public Defender with him on the 

briefs), Office of the Federal Public Defender, Muskogee, Oklahoma for the DefendantAppellant. 

Linda A. Epperley, Assistant United States Attorney (Mark F. Green, United States 

Attorney; and Kyle Evan Waters, Assistant United States Attorney with her on the brief), 

Muskogee, Oklahoma for the Plaintiff-Appellee. 

 

Before LUCERO, HOLMES, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. 

LUCERO, Circuit Judge. 

 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

January 21, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 14-7008 Document: 01019373139 Date Filed: 01/21/2015 Page: 1 
-2- 

 Bryan Berres appeals following his conditional guilty plea to three counts of 

possession of an unregistered firearm in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). He raises 

several challenges to the validity of those counts. First, he argues that his conviction for 

possessing an unregistered flash bang device violates his due process rights because it 

was impossible for him, as a transferee of the device, to register it. However, our circuit 

jurisprudence distinguishes between firearms that may not be registered at all because 

their possession is banned, and those firearms that may be registered by a maker or a 

transferor, even if not by a transferee. Compare United States v. Dalton, 960 F.2d 121 

(10th Cir. 1992), with United States v. McCollom, 12 F.3d 968 (10th Cir. 1993). 

Because the flash bang at issue falls into the latter category, Berres’ argument fails. 

 Berres also challenges two § 5861(d) counts that were based on unassembled 

destructive devices. We are unpersuaded by his argument that the implementing 

regulations for § 5861(d) require registration only for completed devices. And we reject 

his contention that these charges were multiplicitous because he possessed only a single 

combination of parts. The statute permits separate prosecution for each firearm 

possessed, and the definition of firearm includes “any combination of parts either 

designed or intended for use in converting any device into a destructive device . . . and 

from which a destructive device may be readily assembled.” 26 U.S.C. § 5845(f)(3) 

(emphasis added). Because Berres was properly charged with possessing two 

combinations designed or intended to create two destructive devices, we conclude the 

charges were not multiplicitous. 

Appellate Case: 14-7008 Document: 01019373139 Date Filed: 01/21/2015 Page: 2 
-3- 

 Lastly, Berres appeals the denial of his motion to suppress statements he made to a 

law enforcement officer while in a hospital. We agree with the district court that 

suppression was inappropriate because Berres was not in custody at the time he made the 

statements. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. 

I

 On May 9, 2013, Berres walked into the AmeriGas Propane Company in 

Tahlequah, Oklahoma. As he entered the business, he placed a backpack near the front 

door. Berres first asked if he could use a phone to call his wife, then requested that 

employees call an ambulance to take him to the Veterans Administration (“VA”) Hospital 

in Muskogee, Oklahoma. Suspecting that Berres was in need of psychiatric treatment, 

the employees called for an ambulance. 

 Medical personnel arrived within minutes. When asked if he had any weapons, 

Berres handed over a knife and stated that he had a .38 pistol in his bag. The medics on 

scene then called for assistance from the Tahlequah Police Department. An officer 

responding to the call questioned Berres about the pistol. Berres stated that the gun was 

not loaded and that he had a license to carry it. He also told the officer that his bag 

contained a flash bang device, 8’’ leads, squibs, and electric matches. The AmeriGas 

facility was evacuated, and agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 

Explosives (“ATF”) and the Oklahoma Highway Patrol Bomb Squad were called. Berres 

was transported by ambulance to the Muskogee VA Hospital. 

 ATF special agent Ashley Stephens contacted Matt Meredith, an agent with the 

Appellate Case: 14-7008 Document: 01019373139 Date Filed: 01/21/2015 Page: 3 
-4- 

District 27 Drug and Violent Crime Task Force, and asked him to meet with Berres at the 

VA Hospital. Meredith arrived at the hospital with two other officers, all dressed in plain 

clothes. Berres was seated in a room, eating, when Meredith reached him. Meredith 

introduced himself and asked if Berres would be willing to talk to him about the contents 

of his bag. Berres was “more than willing” to talk with Meredith. He stated that the bag 

contained a flash bang device, a .38 pistol, about 50 feet of Class C squib, about 70 feet 

of red paper fuse, two pounds of black powder, and night vision goggles. Berres also 

stated that he was taking these items to a wooded area to “get the government out of his 

body.”

 Meredith’s interview with Berres lasted approximately an hour, during which time 

Meredith repeatedly left the room to relay information to Stephens. Berres was seated in 

a chair near an open door throughout the interview, with Meredith seated on the far side 

of the room. Two other officers were positioned in the hallway outside the door for most 

of the interview. A doctor entered the room at the end of the interview and told Meredith 

that Berres was being placed on a 72-hour psychiatric hold. Hospital progress notes state 

that Berres was “voluntar[il]y here in the emergency department, but he is uncertain if he 

would want to stay in the hospital.” A subsequent notation states that staff were awaiting 

an evaluation from “mental health,” that police “plan[] emergency detention order,” and 

that “the patient does not want to stay.” 

 Following Meredith’s interview, law enforcement safely opened Berres’ backpack. 

It contained a flash bang device, two cans of black powder, six feet of cannon fuse, 36 

Appellate Case: 14-7008 Document: 01019373139 Date Filed: 01/21/2015 Page: 4 
-5- 

electric matches, sixty feet of quick match fuse, a .38 pistol, nearly 300 rounds of .38 

ammunition, and thirty rounds of .223 ammunition. Berres was charged with three 

counts of possession of an unregistered firearm. Count one relates to the flash bang 

device; counts two and three each charged possession of a combination of parts from 

which a destructive device may be readily assembled, specifically a black powder 

container, cannon fuse, and electric matches. 

 Berres filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that count one violated his due process 

rights because it was not legally possible for him to register the flash bang, that counts 

two and three failed to state an offense, and that counts two and three were multiplicitous. 

The district court denied the motion but stated that Berres could raise the multiplicity 

argument again after the government presented its case at trial. Berres also filed a motion 

to suppress the statements he made to Meredith, which the district court denied. 

 Berres then pled guilty to all three counts pursuant to a written plea agreement. 

He reserved the right to appeal the denials of his motion to dismiss and his motion to 

suppress. Berres was sentenced to sixty months’ probation. He timely appealed. 

II 

A

 Berres first contends that his conviction on count one violated his due process 

rights because it was legally impossible for him to register the flash bang device forming 

the basis of that charge. We review the constitutionality of a statute de novo. See United 

States v. Shavanaux, 647 F.3d 993, 996 (10th Cir. 2011). 

Appellate Case: 14-7008 Document: 01019373139 Date Filed: 01/21/2015 Page: 5 
-6- 

 Under § 5861(d), no person may “receive or possess a firearm which is not 

registered to him in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.” For 

purposes of the statute, “firearm” refers to a specific list of devices, including sawed off 

shotguns, machineguns, and “destructive devices” such as grenades or flash bangs. 

§ 5845. The “maker” or “transferor” of a firearm must register the firearm and pay a tax. 

See §§ 5812, 5822. Transferors must identify the transferee as part of the registration 

process. § 5812. 

 Berres argues that because he is not a maker or transferor of the flash bang, it was 

legally impossible for him to register the device. Although regulations implementing the 

statute require transferors to identify transferees, they do not allow an unregistered 

transferee to register. See 27 C.F.R. § 479.101(b) (“Each firearm transferred shall be 

registered to the transferee by the transferor in the manner prescribed by this part. No 

firearm may be registered by a person unlawfully in possession of the firearm except 

during an amnesty period established under section 207 of the Gun Control Act of 

1968.”). And a registration application must be denied “if the making or possession of 

the firearm would place the person making the firearm in violation of law.” 26 U.S.C. 

§ 5822. 

 In support of his due process argument, Berres relies heavily on United States v. 

Dalton, 960 F.2d 121 (10th Cir. 1992). In that case, we concluded that a defendant may 

not be convicted of possessing an unregistered machinegun under § 5861(d). Because 

“[a] separate criminal statute prohibits the possession of any machinegun” and “the 

Appellate Case: 14-7008 Document: 01019373139 Date Filed: 01/21/2015 Page: 6 
-7- 

government will not permit the registration of machineguns,” we concluded that 

“compliance with the registration requirements referred to in sections 5861(d) and (e) is 

impossible with this weapon.” Dalton, 960 F.2d at 121. We also noted that “because the 

registration requirements of the National Firearms Act were passed pursuant to the taxing 

power, and because after the [ban on machinegun possession], the government will no 

longer register or tax machineguns,” the government lacked “the constitutional 

legitimacy of registration as an aid to taxation.” Id. at 124-25.1

 Unlike the machineguns at issue in Dalton, however, the flash bang Berres was 

convicted of possessing can be registered by a transferor. Accordingly, his claim is 

controlled not by Dalton, but by United States v. McCollom, 12 F.3d 968 (10th Cir. 

1993). In McCollom, we rejected a due process challenge to a § 5861(d) conviction for 

possession of two unregistered sawed-off shotguns. 12 F.3d at 970. The defendant 

argued “his due process rights were violated by his conviction for possessing unregistered 

weapons when he could not register them.” Id. We concluded his analogy to Dalton was 

inapt: “The distinguishing feature between the short-barreled shotgun in this case and the 

machinegun in Dalton is that there is no statutory ban on the registration of short-barreled 

 1

 As the government notes, several circuits have disagreed with Dalton’s 

reasoning. See United States v. Bournes, 339 F.3d 396, 399 (6th Cir. 2003) (explaining 

that the 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 11th Circuits have rejected Dalton, with no circuit 

agreeing). These courts have concluded that an individual can comply with the statute by 

declining to possess a machinegun. Id. However, Dalton remains good law in this circuit 

and is thus binding on our panel. See Rezaq v. Nalley, 677 F.3d 1001, 1012 n.5 (10th 

Cir. 2012) (panel may not overrule another absent intervening Supreme Court or en banc 

authority). 

Appellate Case: 14-7008 Document: 01019373139 Date Filed: 01/21/2015 Page: 7 
-8- 

shotguns.” McCollom, 12 F.3d at 971 (quotation omitted). Even if the defendant himself 

could not have registered the firearms as a transferee, the firearm was not wholly 

unregisterable. We thus held that “[d]ifferent from Dalton, the registration of this 

weapon was not a legal impossibility.” Id.; see also United States v. Eaton, 260 F.3d 

1232, 1237 (10th Cir. 2001) (“Dalton involved a situation in which a particular statute 

criminalized possession of a machine gun, thereby making gun registration legally 

impossible. There is no similar statute criminalizing the possession of a destructive 

device such as a pipe bomb.”). Many decisions from other circuits have made this same 

distinction. See, e.g., United States v. Ridlehuber, 11 F.3d 516, 526 (5th Cir. 1993) 

(“[E]ven if Dalton is correct as to the class of machineguns made illegal . . . , the Tenth 

Circuit’s reasoning in Dalton does not encompass short-barreled shotguns, which can be 

possessed legally under federal law if registered.”). 

 Because the flash bang device Berres was convicted of possessing in count one 

could have been registered, even if not by Berres himself, we must reject his due process 

argument. 

B

 Berres also claims that counts two and three fail to state an offense because there 

is no duty to register a destructive device until it is assembled. We generally review a 

district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss a criminal indictment for abuse of discretion, 

but review any statutory interpretation issues involved in the ruling de novo. See United 

States v. Welch, 327 F.3d 1081, 1089-90 (10th Cir. 2003). We apply the following twoAppellate Case: 14-7008 Document: 01019373139 Date Filed: 01/21/2015 Page: 8 
-9- 

part test in determining the sufficiency of an indictment: 

First, the indictment must contain the elements of the offense and 

sufficiently apprise the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet; 

second, it must be such as to show to what extent he may plead a former 

acquittal or conviction as a bar to further prosecution for the same cause. 

United States v. Salazar, 720 F.2d 1482, 1486 (10th Cir. 1983) (quotation omitted). 

 Under 26 U.S.C. § 5845, a defendant may not possess an unregistered “destructive 

device” such as a “bomb,” “grenade” or “similar device” or “any combination of parts 

either designed or intended for use in converting any device into a destructive device as 

defined . . . and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled.” 

§ 5845(f)(1), (3). Berres concedes that the combination of a “black powder container, 

canon [sic] fuse, and electric matches” identified in the indictment fits within this 

definition. But he contends that the charges are faulty because, under the statute’s 

implementing regulations, a destructive device need not be registered until it is actually 

assembled. 

 Berres points to 27 C.F.R. § 479.24, which allows an individual to request a 

determination as to whether a device qualifies under § 5845(f). Such requests must 

include: 

a complete and accurate description of the device . . . and such photographs, 

diagrams, or drawings as may be necessary to enable the Director to make 

his determination. The Director may require the submission to him, of a 

sample of such device for examination and evaluation. If the submission of 

such device is impracticable, the person requesting the ruling shall so 

advise the Director and designate the place where the device will be 

available for examination and evaluation. 

Appellate Case: 14-7008 Document: 01019373139 Date Filed: 01/21/2015 Page: 9 
-10- 

§ 479.24. Berres also relies on 27 C.F.R. § 479.103, which requires manufacturers of 

firearms, including destructive devices, to file a “Notice of Firearms Manufactured or 

Imported” for all firearms made in a single day “no later than the close of the next 

business day.” Id. The notice must include “the date of manufacture, the type, model, 

length of barrel, overall length, caliber, gauge or size, serial numbers, and other marks of 

identification of the firearms he manufactures.” Id. Berres contends that these 

regulations imply a duty to register that arises only when a destructive device has been 

fully assembled. 

 We do not read these regulations as limiting the duty to register to completely 

assembled destructive devices. Nothing in the text of § 479.24 would preclude an 

individual from requesting a determination as to a combination of parts from which a 

destructive device may be readily assembled. As to § 479.103, we acknowledge that one 

would typically envision the “manufacture” of a “firearm” to involve complete assembly. 

But the term “firearm” is defined by regulation, consistent with the statutory provisions, 

to include “any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any 

device into a [bomb, grenade, or similar device] and from which a destructive device may 

be readily assembled.” § 479.11; see 26 U.S.C. § 5845(f). With this definition in mind, 

§ 479.103 necessarily includes the manufacture of a combination of parts from which a 

destructive device may be readily assembled, and thus cannot be limited to fully 

assembled firearms. 

 Moreover, construing the regulations as applying only to fully assembled firearms 

Appellate Case: 14-7008 Document: 01019373139 Date Filed: 01/21/2015 Page: 10 
-11- 

would render nugatory the statutory language that prohibits possession of an unregistered 

combination of parts “from which a destructive device may be readily assembled.” 26 

U.S.C. § 5845(f). And as one of our sibling circuits has observed, such a construction 

would frustrate the Congressional scheme. See United States v. Shafer, 445 F.2d 579, 

583 (7th Cir. 1971) (“The statute does not specify that the parts must be assembled before 

it applies. To place such a construction upon the language of the Act would contradict 

the flexibility expressly created by Section 5845(f) and would foster easy evasion to 

thwart the Congressional intent.”); see also United States v. Klanecky, 393 F. App’x 409 

(8th Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (per curiam) (upholding conviction for possession of 

unassembled grenade). 

C

 In addition to arguing that counts two and three fail to state an offense, Berres 

contends that those charges are multiplicitous. We review such claims de novo. United 

States v. Jackson, 736 F.3d 953, 956 (10th Cir. 2013). The Double Jeopardy Clause bars 

“multiple punishments for the same offense based on the total punishment authorized by 

the legislature.” Id. at 955. We “presume that where two statutory provisions proscribe 

the same offense, a legislature does not intend to impose two punishments for that 

offense.” Rutledge v. United States, 517 U.S. 292, 297 (1996) (quotation omitted). 

However, a defendant “may be prosecuted for more than one crime based on the same 

conduct (1) if each crime requires proof of a fact that the other does not or (2) if Congress 

has clearly expressed its intent to impose cumulative punishment for the same conduct 

Appellate Case: 14-7008 Document: 01019373139 Date Filed: 01/21/2015 Page: 11 
-12- 

under different statutory provisions.” United States v. Morris, 247 F.3d 1080, 1083 (10th 

Cir. 2001) (quotation omitted). If the statutory language is sufficiently ambiguous, the 

rule of lenity requires us to limit the charges to a single unit of prosecution. Jackson, 736 

F.3d at 956. 

 Berres argues that he possessed only a single combination of parts, which included 

both cans of black powder, and all of which were contained in a single backpack. The 

district court denied his motion to dismiss but noted that the question of whether a single 

course of conduct constitutes multiple offenses may not be clear from the charging 

documents alone. See United States v. Universal C.I.T. Credit Corp., 344 U.S. 218, 225 

(1952). Accordingly, it held that Berres could renew his argument at the close of the 

government’s case. Berres subsequently entered a conditional guilty plea, and thus the 

facts were never fleshed out through trial. Under these circumstances, our review is 

circumscribed. 

 “A plea of guilty and the ensuing conviction comprehend all of the factual and 

legal elements necessary to sustain a binding, final judgment of guilt and a lawful 

sentence.” United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 569 (1989). However, as the Supreme 

Court held in Menna v. New York, 423 U.S. 61 (1975), certain double jeopardy claims 

may proceed even after a guilty plea because if “the State is precluded by the United 

States Constitution from haling a defendant into court on a charge, federal law requires 

that a conviction on that charge be set aside even if the conviction was entered pursuant 

to a counseled plea of guilty.” Id. at 62. This does not mean that “a double jeopardy 

Appellate Case: 14-7008 Document: 01019373139 Date Filed: 01/21/2015 Page: 12 
-13- 

claim may never be waived,” but that “a plea of guilty to a charge does not waive a claim 

that—judged on its face—the charge is one which the State may not constitutionally 

prosecute.” Id. at 62 n.2. Thus, a defendant advancing a double jeopardy claim 

following a guilty plea must “prove [his] claim by relying on th[e] indictment[] and the 

existing record . . . without contradicting th[e] indictment[].” Broce, 488 U.S. at 576. 

 Section 5861 prohibits any person from receiving or possessing “a firearm” and 

requires that “each firearm” be registered. Id. This language makes it sufficiently clear 

that “each firearm constitutes a separate unit for the purposes of criminal prosecution.” 

United States v. Sanders, 441 F.2d 412, 414 (10th Cir. 1971) (quotation omitted). 

Accordingly, “one who possesses two firearms, neither of which is registered to him in 

the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, has twice violated the provisions 

of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) and he may be prosecuted for each violation.” Id. 

 Applying the rule that possession of each unregistered firearm constitutes a 

separate offense is straightforward in cases like Sanders, in which the charges relate to 

guns. We face a more difficult task in applying this rule to multiple charges for 

“combination[s] of parts.” § 5845(f)(3). In ordinary usage, one might refer to a bag of 

components from which a large number of destructive devices could be assembled as a 

single “combination of parts.” Id. On the other hand, depending on the particular facts, a 

single container might be described as having several different combinations of parts 

from which multiple destructive devices could be assembled. Berres suggests that this 

ambiguity requires lenity. See Jackson, 736 F.3d at 956. 

Appellate Case: 14-7008 Document: 01019373139 Date Filed: 01/21/2015 Page: 13 
-14- 

 But this ambiguity disappears when the full text of § 5845(f)(3) is considered. See 

Dolan v. U.S. Postal Service, 546 U.S. 481 (2006) (“Interpretation of a word or phrase 

depends upon reading the whole statutory text . . . .”); see also Barber v. Thomas, 560 

U.S. 474, 488 (2010) (“[T]he rule of lenity only applies if, after considering text, 

structure, history, and purpose, there remains a grievous ambiguity or uncertainty in the 

statute, such that the Court must simply guess as to what Congress intended.” (quotation 

and citation omitted)). The statute does not refer simply to a “combination of parts,” but 

to “any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device 

into a destructive device . . . and from which a destructive device may be readily 

assembled.” § 5845(f)(3) (emphasis added). Based on this language, we hold that 

whether a group of components will support multiple charges depends on whether the 

components were “designed or intended” to be converted into multiple destructive 

devices.

 The indictment in this case parallels the statutory language. In count two, it 

alleges that Berres possessed “a metal GOEX black powder container, canon [sic] fuse, 

and electric matches” and that this combination of parts was “designed or intended for 

use in converting any device into a destructive device.” Count three alleges that Berres 

possessed a second “metal GOEX black powder container” along with “canon [sic] fuse, 

and electric matches” and that this second combination of parts was “designed or 

intended for use in converting any device into a destructive device.” Further, Berres 

acknowledged at his change of plea hearing that he possessed “components to assemble 

Appellate Case: 14-7008 Document: 01019373139 Date Filed: 01/21/2015 Page: 14 
-15- 

two destructive devices.” Based on this record, we conclude that Berres was permissibly 

charged with two separate counts under § 5861(d) for his possession of two combinations 

of parts designed or intended for use in constructing a destructive device. 

D

 In his final challenge, Berres appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to 

suppress. In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we take the facts found by the 

district court, unless clearly erroneous, and view the evidence in the light most favorable 

to the government. See United States v. Jones, 523 F.3d 1235, 1239 (10th Cir. 2008). 

The ultimate determination of whether Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), applies 

is reviewed de novo. Id. Miranda warnings are required when a person is “in custody.” 

United States v. Bernard, 680 F.3d 1206, 1211 (10th Cir. 2012). “In determining whether 

a person is in custody in this sense [for Miranda purposes], the initial step is to ascertain 

whether, in light of the objective circumstances of the interrogation, a reasonable person 

would have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave.” 

Howes v. Fields, 132 S. Ct. 1181, 1189 (2012) (quotations and alterations omitted). 

 Berres points to a number of factors that, he claims, weigh in favor of a finding 

that he was in custody. He was apparently not made aware that he was free to leave. See 

Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495 (1977). The questioning related to a potential 

crime committed by him. See Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 437 (1984). And, he 

argues, the questioning took place in a “police[-]dominated” atmosphere. Id. at 439. The 

district court acknowledged that some of the factors weighed in favor of a finding that 

Appellate Case: 14-7008 Document: 01019373139 Date Filed: 01/21/2015 Page: 15 
-16- 

Berres was in custody, but the totality of the circumstances did not warrant such a 

finding. We agree. 

 Importantly, Berres was at the hospital on his own request. See Fields, 132 S. Ct. 

at 1189 (“Relevant factors include the location of the questioning . . . .”); see generally 

United States v. Robertson, 19 F.3d 1318, 1320-21 (10th Cir. 1994) (concluding a 

hospital interrogation was not custodial). He was not told he was in custody, nor was he 

physically restrained in any way. See id. (considering presence of restraints). Berres 

appeared calm, was completely willing to discuss the contents of his bag, and never 

sought to end the interview. Meredith was not aggressive or confrontational during his 

questioning, which lasted about an hour largely because Meredith repeatedly left the 

room to relay information to agents at the propane facility. See United States v. Lamy, 

521 F.3d 1257, 1263-64 (10th Cir. 2008) (an hour-long interrogation that was not 

“unusually confrontational” did not qualify as custodial). 

 Nor can we accept Berres’ assertion that the atmosphere in the hospital room was 

police-dominated. Although three officers initially introduced themselves to Berres, only 

Meredith was in the room for the vast majority of the interview. See Jones, 523 F.3d at 

1242 (“Jones did encounter multiple agents, but she was not confronted by them 

simultaneously or aggressively . . . [and only one agent spoke] with her throughout the 

encounter.”). All three officers were in plain clothes, and none had a weapon displayed. 

See id. (“agents were in plain clothes, their guns concealed”). Meredith came and went 

from the room, as did hospital staff on at least one occasion. And Berres was seated 

Appellate Case: 14-7008 Document: 01019373139 Date Filed: 01/21/2015 Page: 16 
-17- 

nearer to the room’s open door than was Meredith. See Fields, 132 S. Ct. at 1190 (noting 

that a reasonable belief of restricted freedom of movement is a necessary condition for 

Miranda custody). 

 Berres relies heavily on a medical record that indicates law enforcement “plans 

emergency detention order,” and that Berres “does not want to stay.” However, the same 

record states that Berres was “voluntar[il]y here in the emergency department, but he is 

uncertain if he would want to stay in the hospital.” It is unclear when, in relation to the 

interview, Berres indicated that he did not want to stay or to whom. Meredith testified 

unequivocally, however, that hospital staff rather than police imposed a psychiatric hold 

after he completed his questioning. Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

government, we cannot say that the district court clearly erred in finding Berres was not 

detained at the time of the interview. See Jones, 523 F.3d at 1239. 

 Finally, Berres argues that officers improperly took advantage of his troubled 

mental state. See Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 164 (1986) (noting that “courts 

have found the mental condition of the defendant a more significant factor in the 

‘voluntariness’ calculus”). However, the Court has made clear that “[t]he sole concern of 

the Fifth Amendment, on which Miranda was based, is governmental coercion.” Id. at 

170. Absent evidence that law enforcement coerced statements from Berres, and coupled 

with our conclusion that he was not in custody for Miranda purposes, his mental state did 

not require suppression. 

Appellate Case: 14-7008 Document: 01019373139 Date Filed: 01/21/2015 Page: 17 
-18- 

III

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

 

Appellate Case: 14-7008 Document: 01019373139 Date Filed: 01/21/2015 Page: 18