Opinion
No. 06-50646.
Submitted July 11, 2007 Pasadena, California.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
July 13, 2007.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Barry T. Moskowitz, District Judge, Presiding, D.C. No. CR-04-02337-BTM.
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Juan Manuel Ramirez-Villalba appeals his conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
The defendant argues that the district court erred in holding that he was not in custody when the border patrol agent first questioned him. Whether the defendant was in custody for Miranda purposes is a mixed question of fact and law that we review de novo. United States v. Kim, 292 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2002). We review the district court's factual findings for clear error. Id. The totality of the circumstances establish that the defendant was not in custody when he was initially questioned outdoors. The agent found the defendant and another individual in the brush approximately a mile and a half north of the Mexican border and four to five miles west of the port of entry. The agent waited until the individuals noticed him, identified himself as a border patrol agent, and asked the individuals questions related to whether they were legally in the United States. Because this was not an in-custody interrogation, no Miranda warnings were necessary. United States v. Galindo-Gallegos, 244 F.3d 728, 731-32, amended by, 255 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2001).
The defendant also argues that his post- Miranda admissions should have been suppressed. He first asserts that the administrative warnings given approximately three hours prior to the Miranda warnings were potentially confusing and undermined the Miranda warnings. We review the adequacy of the Miranda warnings de novo. United States v. San Juan-Cruz, 314 F.3d 384, 387 (9th Cir. 2002). The district court did not clearly err in finding that no confusion occurred in this case. The agents rectified any possible confusion in this case. They informed the defendant that, due to his criminal record, they were going to criminally charge him and therefore the earlier administrative rights were no longer valid. Then they read him the Miranda warnings. Id. at 389.
The defendant also asserts the questioning during the original encounter tainted his post- Miranda admissions so that his admissions should have been excluded under Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004). However, unlike Seibert, the defendant was not in custody during the initial questioning and no Miranda warnings were required. Id. at 604.
Finally, the defendant argues that there is insufficient evidence in the record to establish that he knew that he was in the United States at the time he was apprehended. We review the district court's denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal de novo. United States v. Nguyen, 465 F.3d 1128, 1130 (9th Cir. 2006). "[V]iewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution," we determine whether "any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979) (emphasis omitted). Knowledge can be inferred from the defendant's presence in the United States at a location other than the border. United States v. Salazar-Gonzalez, 458 F.3d 851, 855-57 (9th Cir. 2006). The evidence at trial established that the agent found the defendant hiding in brush approximately a mile and a half north of the border and four to five miles west of the port of entry. A rational juror could have inferred knowledge from these facts. Id. at 858. In any event, the defendant admitted to the agents that he had entered the United States the day before he was discovered by the border patrol.
AFFIRMED.