UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dagoberto RODRIGUEZ-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant

Good Law
63 F.3d 892·95 Daily Journal DAR 11213·1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23055·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6573
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 21, 199594-50404California616 words

Opinion

Opinion

Thompson, J.

Dagoberto Rodriguez-Lopez (Rodriguez) appeals from his conviction and sentence for drug smuggling. He contends his conviction should be reversed because a statement he made to Customs agents was admitted at trial in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). He also contends he should not have been sentenced to the mandatory minimum for his crime because of the recent enactment of 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (f). We disagree with both contentions, and we affirm.

I

Rodriguez was arrested at the Calexico, California port of entry when Customs agents found thirty-nine kilograms of cocaine hidden in the car he was driving. Rodriguez was apprised of his Miranda rights in Spanish by Customs Agent Richard Cramer. Rodriguez told Cramer that he understood his rights and he wanted to speak to a lawyer. According to Cramer’s testimony at trial, Rodriguez then volunteered a statement about how he came to be driving that car across the border. Cramer testified that Rodriguez’s statement was unsolicited and Cramer did not ask any questions after Rodriguez invoked his Miranda right to have counsel present. Cramer then related the substance of the statement to…

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.