United States v. James Postlethwaite
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Defendant-appellant James Postlethwaite appeals his jury conviction for conspiracy to distribute marijuana. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
Before the district court, Postlethwaite moved to suppress the statements he made on the day of his arrest on three separate grounds: (1) Postlethwaite was in custody as soon as he was detained and should have been given Miranda warnings immediately; (2) officials deliberately withheld Miranda warnings at first and only later gave the warnings, in violation of Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 , 124 S.Ct. 2601 , 159 L.Ed.2d 643 (2004), rendering his statements inadmissible; and (3) Postlethwaite’s waiver of his Miranda rights was involuntary because of the circumstances of his detention. The district court denied the motion to suppress on all three grounds, and Postlethwaite was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to distribute marijuana.
On appeal, Postlethwaite contends that two statements in particular he made just after his arrest should have been suppressed because they were part of his invocation of his right to counsel and thus inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment. See United States v.…