Opinion ID: 2975721
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: ATF Agents’ Questioning of Black

Text: Finally, we turn to Black’s appeal of the district court’s second order, denying his motion to suppress statements he made to Agents Winston and Claiborne. Black argues that the agents did not read him his Miranda warnings, noting that there was no mention of the warnings in the agents’ notes, no signed Miranda warning form, and no tape recording of the interrogation to prove that such warnings were given. Appellant’s Br. 30. At the suppression hearing, Claiborne testified that when he and Winston met with Black, Winston read Black his Miranda rights.5 Claiborne and Winston both testified that although Black refused to sign an ATF rights-waiver form, Black stated that he 5 These rights were read off of a “Miranda card,” which stated the following warning: Before we ask you any questions you must understand you have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in court. You have right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions and to have a lawyer with you during questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questioning, if you wish. Do you understand? Are you willing to answer some questions? Winston testified that in response to the question, “Do you understand?”, Black stated “Yes, I know my rights,” and that in response to the question, “Are you willing to answer some questions?”, Black stated “Yes.” No. 06-6007 United States v. Black Page 13 was willing to talk to the agents. A subsequent investigation report that Winston submitted to his supervisor on October 3, 2004, confirmed this series of events. The magistrate judge found “that the testimony of Claiborne and Winston is credible and unimpeached[,] . . . that the testimony of Black is not credible[, and] . . . that Claiborne and Winston did give Black his Miranda warnings before the interview in question and that [Black] agreed to talk with the agents after being warned of his rights.” Mag. J. Op., 9/12/05, at 8. The district court reviewed the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation de novo and found “that the officers gave [Black] his Miranda warnings before the interview on September 17, 2004; that [Black] agreed to talk with the agents after being advised of his rights; and that [Black’s] statements were voluntarily given, based upon the totality of the surrounding circumstances.” D. Ct. Op., 10/12/05, at 97-98. Because these factual findings are not clearly erroneous, we affirm the district court’s denial of Black’s motion to suppress his statements.