United States v. Esmeralda Segovia Contreras

MEMORANDUM

Defendant Esmeralda Segovia Contreras appeals the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress her post-arrest statements to an FBI agent. After the denial, Contreras entered a conditional plea for conspiracy to kidnap a minor. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the adequacy of a Miranda warning, the invocation of the right to' counsel, and the voluntariness of a statement to a law enforcement officer, and we review underlying factual findings for clear error. United States v. Younger, 398 F.3d 1179, 1185 (9th Cir.2005); United States v. Wolf, 813 F.2d 970, 974 (9th Cir.1987). We affirm.

The warnings given in this case conveyed to Contreras her rights as required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). See United States v. Miguel, 952 F.2d 285, 287-88 (9th Cir.1991). Reading from the local police department’s Spanish language translation card, the agent who speaks fluent Spanish stated “[i]f you cannot af ford an attorney, one will be appointed for you to represent you if you wish before the questioning,” among other things. Contreras’s argument that the statement was inadequate because it did not…