#### UNITED STATES Of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JIAN LI, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-30138.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 9, 2012.*

Filed Dec. 3, 2012.

Norman McIntosh Barbosa, Assistant U.S., Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Timothy R. Lohraff, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: W. FLETCHER and FISHER, Circuit Judges, and QUIST, Senior District Judge.**

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable Gordon J. Quist, Senior United States District Judge for the Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Jian Li appeals his conviction for making a false statement or representation to the United States government in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. We reject his arguments and affirm. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

*717We review a district court’s interpretation of a statute de novo. *United States v. Cabaccang,*332 F.3d 622, 624-25 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc). Whether a person is in custody and thus is entitled to *Miranda*warnings is a “mixed question of law and fact warranting de novo review.” *United States v. Bassignani,*575 F.3d 879, 883 (9th Cir.2009) (quoting *United States v. Kim,*292 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir.2002)); *see also Miranda v. Arizona,*384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). “The admission of statements made in violation of a person’s *Miranda*rights is reviewed for harmless error.” *United States v. Williams,*435 F.3d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir.2006) (quoting *United States v. Butler,*249 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir.2001)).

A statement or representation is material for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2) if it is “calculated to induce action or reliance” by another or “has a natural tendency to influence” another’s decisions. *United States v. De Rosa,*783 F.2d 1401, 1408 (9th Cir.1986). A false statement need not actually influence a government agency nor need the agency actually rely on a false statement for it to be material. *United States v. Boone,*951 F.2d 1526, 1545 (9th Cir.1991); *United States v. Vaughn,*797 F.2d 1485, 1490 (9th Cir.1986). Li’s false statements to Officer Harms and presentation of a passport obtained by fraudulent means are material for purposes of § 1001(a)(2).

The evidence presented to the district court was sufficient for it to conclude that Li obtained the passport by fraudulent means in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1542, and Li does not appeal that conviction. Li presented the passport to gain admission to the United States under the guise of a person with a different name and date of birth. This is sufficient to constitute a false representation to the United States government for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2).

Finally, because Li’s presentation of a fraudulently obtained passport also constitutes a materially false representation, even if Li’s statements to Officer Harms were admitted in violation of *Miranda v. Arizona,*384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, the admission would be harmless error.

AFFIRMED.

***

 pkjg disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.