Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel Pallares CASTELLON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-09-23
Citations: 617 F. App'x 791
Docket Number: No. 14-50395
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel Pallares CASTELLON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GRABER, RAWLINSON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 617
Pages: 791–792

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel Pallares CASTELLON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-50395.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Aug. 31, 2015.
Filed Sept. 23, 2015.
Stapey H. Sullivan, Assistant U.S., Peter Ko, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
Tommy Hai Vu, Esquire, Trial, Doug Keller, Federal Defenders of San Diego, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GRABER, RAWLINSON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Appellant Joel Pallares Castellón (Pal-lares) challenges the district court's denial of his motion to suppress. Pallares contends that the district court clearly erred in holding that he knowingly and intelligently waived all of his Miranda rights. Pallares also asserts that waiver of his Miranda rights was involuntary because the officer threatened to question Pallares' son if he did not obtain a statement from Pallares.
The district court did not make the requisite determination that Pallares knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights. See United States v. Perez-Lopez, 348 F.3d 839, 847-48 (9th Cir.2003). The transcript of the interview reflects that Pallares remained confused about the waiver of his rights despite thé officer's explanations. Ultimately, Pallares never affirmed that he understood the waiver of his rights.
At the evidentiary hearing, the interrogating officer conceded that the wording of the waiver form was confusing. Pallares also presented undisputed testimony from a Spanish language interpreter that the waiver form and the officer's explanations did not properly convey the waiver of Miranda rights in Spanish. Because the Miranda warning was not conveyed "clearly and in a manner that [was] unambiguous," Pallares' waiver was not knowing and intelligent. Id. at 848 (citation omitted).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
. Because we conclude that Pallares did not knowingly and intelligently waive his Miranda rights, we need not, and do not, decide if his waiver was voluntary.