United States v. Kermit Pereda-Rebollo

MEMORANDUM

Kermit Pereda-Rebollo and Danny Pre-ciado appeal from their convictions under 8 U.S.C. § 1324 (a)(1)(A)(ii) and (v)(ii) for transportation of illegal aliens. Both contend the district court erred by denying them an evidentiary hearing and denying their motion to suppress evidence obtained during an investigatory stop of their vehicle. Pereda-Rebollo appeals the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment and motion to suppress post-arrest statements. Preciado appeals the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. The parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history, so we repeat them here only as necessary.

The district court did not err in denying Pereda-Rebollo’s motion to dismiss the indictment because of improper grand jury instructions. The challenged instructions are constitutional. See United States v. Cortez-Rivera, 454 F.3d 1038, 1040-41 (9th Cir.2006); United States v. Navarro-Vargas, 408 F.3d 1184, 1202-06 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc).

Pereda-Rebollo argues his post- Miranda statements should have been suppressed because the administrative warnings and Miranda warnings given to him…