United States v. Roberto Ortiz-Larreynaga

Good Law
374 F. App'x 723
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 24, 201009-50523California526 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Roberto Ortiz-Larreynaga (“Ortiz”) appeals his conviction after trial for violations of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960 (importation of marijuana) and 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1) (possession with intent to dis tribute marijuana). Ortiz contends that incriminating statements used at trial against him should have been suppressed because the Miranda warnings given to him by the interrogating border patrol agents were inadequate, rendering his waiver of those rights invalid. We affirm.

Following Ortiz’s arrest at the San Ysi-dro Port of Entry, border patrol agents interviewed Ortiz, first obtaining biographical data and then informing him of his right to contact the El Salvadorian consulate, which he declined. The evidence shows that the agents accurately advised Ortiz of each of his Miranda rights, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and told him that if he understood each right to initial the written Statement of Rights and Waiver form. After the reading of each right, Ortiz said “yes” and initialed the place in the waiver form pertaining to the right. Before'any incriminating information was elicited from Ortiz, he was asked to read aloud a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.