Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David VELASCO-CASTANEDA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-13
Citations: 442 F. App'x 316
Docket Number: No. 10-50360
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. David VELASCO-CASTANEDA, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: SKOPIL, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 442
Pages: 316–317

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. David VELASCO-CASTANEDA, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 10-50360.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 20, 2011.
Filed July 13, 2011.
Robert Steven Huie, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Brendan Michael Hickey, Law Offices of Brendan Hickey, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SKOPIL, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
David Velasco-Castaneda appeals from his conviction for importation of marijuana and hashish, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for clear error the district court's finding that a Miranda waiver is knowing and intelligent, United States v. Garibay, 143 F.3d 534, 536 (9th Cir.1998), and we affirm.
Velasco-Castaneda contends the district court erred when it denied his motion to suppress and found that he knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights before making incriminating statements.
Velasco-Castaneda is fluent in English, his rights were individually read to him, and he verbally and physically indicated he understood each right. While there is no written waiver, nothing in the record suggests Velasco-Castaneda suffered from any incapacity that prevented him from understanding the nature of his rights or the consequences of waiving them. See United States v. Crews, 502 F.3d 1130, 1140 (9th Cir.2007). Moreover, the district court's determinations that Velasco-Cas-taneda's questions demonstrated his understanding that he had the right not to speak, and that he waived that right by volunteering information without the promise of a reward are not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err in its determination that, under the totality of the circumstances, Velasco-Castaneda made a knowing and intelligent waiver. See id.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.