Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eduardo IRURETAGOYENA, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-03
Citations: 127 F. App'x 383
Docket Number: No. 04-50241
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Eduardo IRURETAGOYENA, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, PREGERSON, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 127
Pages: 383–383

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Eduardo IRURETAGOYENA, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-50241.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted April 6, 2005.
Decided May 3, 2005.
Orlando Gutierrez, USSD—Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff—Appellee.
Michelle Villasenor-Grant, Esq., FDSD—Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant—Appellant.
Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, PREGERSON, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The defendant appeals from the district court's denial of his motion to suppress. He challenges the admissibility of contraband seized from his vehicle at the border and statements made after he was arrested and given Miranda warnings.
There was no violation of Miranda, and the statements were voluntarily made. Despite the government's appropriate concessions before the district court coneerning the lawfulness of the detention, the Supreme Court has now clarified the law. See United States v. Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. 149, 155, 124 S.Ct. 1582, 158 L.Ed.2d 311 (2004) (no Fourth Amendment violation in suspicionless border vehicle search that included disassembling gas tank); cf. Muehler v. Mena,—U.S.-,-, 125 S.Ct. 1465, 1471, 161 L.Ed.2d 299 (2005) (no Fourth Amendment violation when occupant detained in handcuffs during several hour search). In light of those intervening Supreme Court rulings, there was no unlawful detention, and all the challenged evidence was properly admitted.
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.