Opinion ID: 815973
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Validity of Yilmaz’s Miranda Waiver

Text: To prove a valid waiver of Miranda rights, the government must show “(1) that the relinquishment of the defendant’s rights was voluntary, and (2) that the defendant had a full awareness of the right[s] being waived and of the consequences of waiving th[ose] right[s].” United States v. Jaswal, 47 F.3d 539, 542 (2d Cir. 1995) (per curiam). In determining whether a defendant’s waiver was valid, we ask whether “the totality of the circumstances reveals both an uncoerced choice and the requisite level of comprehension.” United States v. Male Juvenile (95-CR-1074), 121 F.3d 34, 40 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). Yilmaz argues that the District Court clearly erred in concluding that he knowingly waived his Miranda rights because, according to Yilmaz, his allegedly “limited ability to understand English” rendered him unable to understand those rights. Appellant’s Br. at 22. We are not persuaded. The CBP officer who conducted Yilmaz’s primary inspection testified that Yilmaz spoke only English during the inspection, that Yilmaz had no difficulty answering questions, and that Yilmaz never stated that he could not understand the officer. Similarly, the CBP 6 officer who conducted Yilmaz’s secondary inspection testified that Yilmaz spoke only English during the inspection, that Yilmaz’s English “appeared fine,” that it was not difficult for the officer to understand Yilmaz, and that Yilmaz never stated during that ninety-minute period that he could not understand the officer. In addition, the record showed that Yilmaz had lived in the United States continuously since 1994, and that cellular telephones seized from his vehicle contained text messages in English. Further, and perhaps most importantly, the ICE agent who read the Miranda warnings testified that he paused after each line to ask Yilmaz whether he understood the warning and that after each such inquiry Yilmaz either nodded his head up and down or responded “yes.” When Yilmaz once asked the agent to speak more slowly, the agent complied. The only possible ambiguity arises from one agent’s testimony that Yilmaz asked the agents the meaning of the word “attorney.” We note, however, that Yilmaz sought no further clarification after the agents explained that “attorney” is another term for “lawyer.” The District Court thus reasonably concluded that Yilmaz understood English sufficiently well to comprehend the Miranda warnings as given to him and waived those rights voluntarily and intelligently. After reviewing the record, we discern no basis to disturb those conclusions. We have considered Yilmaz’s remaining arguments and find them to be unavailing. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 7