Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Isabel DELGADO-MORENO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-04-15
Citations: 94 F. App'x 646
Docket Number: No. 03-10025
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Isabel DELGADO-MORENO, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, RYMER, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 94
Pages: 646–647

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Isabel DELGADO-MORENO, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 03-10025.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 12, 2004.
Decided April 15, 2004.
Mary Beth Phillips, Esq., USPX — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Mumtaza Malaika Rahi-Loo, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
John R. Hannah, Esq., Hoidal & Hannah, P.L.C., Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, RYMER, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, petitioner's motion for oral argument is denied.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Isabel Delgado-Moreno appeals his conviction and 51-month sentence imposed following a jury trial conviction for illegal re-entry into the United States, following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Delgado-Moreno contends that the district court erred in admitting statements made after he was given the warning required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), because they derived from an earlier, preMiranda statement. However, the record supports the district court's finding that both petitioner's pre-Miranda statement and his post -Miranda statements were voluntary and not a product of coercion. See Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 318, 105 S.Ct. 1285, 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985). Accordingly, the post-Miranda statement was properly admitted, and we find no error. See United States v. Gonzales-Sandoval, 894 F.2d 1043, 1049 (9th Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.